Gamers, big business try to bend regulators to their will -- again. Here's the new reg on the green building tax breaks and here's the legislative lawyer's response:
1. The overall style will need to be changed to fit into the style of NAC which means that at least:
(a) A definition that is used only once will be incorporated substantively into the section in which it is used; and
(b) The substantive provisions will be removed from any remaining definitions.
2. In Section 3, the definition of "Construction Contractor" is very broad and we need to consider whether it works as used in section 16 to determine what purchases qualify for the sales tax exemption (e.g. can purchases made by the developer be exempt?)
3. In Section 6, when combined with section 15 seems to exempt more than is allowed by statute - only the building is allowed the exemption and abatement. This section seems to contemplate the exemption and abatement of the whole project (e.g. parking lots, grounds, etc.).
4. We are not sure that section 13 works in terms of when the exemption can be applied and the extent of the exemption.
5. In section 14, paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) appear to conflict with the statute.
6. In section 16, paragraph (d) appears to exceed the authority in the statute to the extent that it includes more than products or materials "used in the construction of a building."
7. In section 18, the definition appears to be circular and no method is actually ever described - when read in combination with section 25, we don't think it works (inclusion of last clause "a parent, subsidiary . . ." is also a problem.
8. In section 19, we can't find any authority for a "modified resale license."
9. We don't understand what paragraph (d) of section 20 is intended to do or how it would work.
10. In section 21, we would need to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) because they only duplicate statute and (c) seems to need to include a provision saying that the property tax will be repaid unless it is somewhere else that we missed.
11. In section 22, the penalty and interest provisions already in statute and reg will have to be applied but we are not sure what the combination of the paragraphs are intended to do.
12. Section 23 goes beyond the statute to require fiscal notes for terminations and requires the fiscal note to be produced "in cooperation with the EA" which seems to conflict with statute.
13. In section 24, we would suggest that the term "assignees" in the third line is too broad - something like "agent" would be closer to the statute and we are not sure that the statute will allow transfer of the credit for the taxes paid.