Latest news with #TennesseeCoalitionforOpenGovernment
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Transparency of Tennessee business tax refund law in question
AT&T was among the corporations getting tax rebates from the state of Tennessee. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout) Tennessee's newly-released listing of companies netting a business tax refund creates the appearance of transparency without providing the public a true picture, according to an open government advocate. Deborah Fisher, executive director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, said Tuesday the information posted May 31 on the Department of Revenue website should contain more exact amounts of refunds to the 60,000 companies that received an estimated total of $1.5 billion. The lists also should remain available for more than 30 days because removal lends itself to 'secrecy,' Fisher said. When lawmakers passed the Republican-backed measure in 2024 at the request of Gov. Bill Lee, senators were loath to put out any public information. But the House demanded a modicum of openness before supporting Senate Bill 2103. These are people threatening to sue the state, and they got $1.5 billion in refunds. Tell me who they are, tell me how much they got. – Deborah Fisher, Tennessee Coalition for Open Government That included posting the names of companies that receive the refunds in categories of less than $750, between $750 and $10,000 and more than $10,000. 'To say something is above $10,000 is not transparent, because it could be $10,500 or $100,000. This covers three years of tax payments that were calculated … and it is not inconceivable that some companies might get a lot of money back,' Fisher said. 'That's why (businesses) got the legislature to change the law.' In addition, Fisher said the governor should release the amount that Lee Company received in the refund and that any lawmaker who applied for a refund should disclose the amount. Lee has consistently said his interest in the family company was placed in a blind trust during his governorship, which will run out in late 2027. Most proponents of the legislation said last year it was necessary because of the threat of litigation, though state officials never revealed the names of companies challenging the legality of the state's franchise and excise tax. Others who supported the measure said it was good tax policy to slash the property tax for businesses statewide. 'Was it truly a legal threat or did they just want to give more money away to corporations who contribute to their campaign or who they're connected with?' Fisher said. Besides the refunds, lawmakers cut the franchise tax — which is levied on companies in amounts based on net worth of capital — by $410 million annually, a move critics say is putting a dent in revenues to the tune of $335 million so far this year. Lawmakers and state officials argued against listing more specific information on the rebates by saying taxpayer information is confidential. Fisher, though, said if the matter had gone to court, the information would have become public record, and the public would have had a better indication of how the state's franchise tax was faulty. World's top businesses, Lee Company receive biggest Tennessee tax rebates 'Maybe it was cheaper to change the law,' Fisher said. 'But still, these are people threatening to sue the state, and they got $1.5 billion in refunds. Tell me who they are, tell me how much they got.' Rep. Jeremy Faison of Cosby, chairman of the House Republican Caucus, defended the law Tuesday by saying every recipient of the 'significant tax cut' is listed on the state site for the public to search and save. 'I believe in transparency, and so do my fellow Republicans. That's exactly why the House made sure the public has easy access to this information,' Faison said via text message. Only one Republican, Rep. Gino Bulso of Brentwood, voted against the bill, and only one Democrat, Rep. Johnny Shaw of Bolivar, voted for the bill last year. Otherwise, the measure passed along party lines with supermajority Republicans supporting it. Democratic Rep. Sam McKenzie of Knoxville said Tuesday the list doesn't provide enough transparency and called it a 'self-serving' measure 'to keep the rich folks rich' and hurt working-class Tennesseans. He added that the policy enables businesses such as Lee Company to hide behind the refund ranges, even though they could have received much more than $10,000. 'It's obvious that they're ashamed of it. If they're not ashamed of it, they wouldn't allow it to sit out there for just 20 or 30 days,' McKenzie. 'It's an indictment.' Democratic Rep. Caleb Hemmer of Nashville echoed those comments, saying the ranges of money are 'worthless' as far as transparency when Fortune 500 companies are lumped in with mom-and-pop businesses. 'They didn't want to put targets on some people's backs, but they're asking for pretty significant (refunds), $2 billion of tax revenue in a very odd and unique situation, and I think the more transparency the better,' Hemmer said. Democratic lawmakers, Rep. John Ray Clemmons and Sen. Jeff Yarbro of Nashville proposed an alternative bill last year that they said would have enabled the state to avoid a lawsuit and continue to collect the business tax. Republican lawmakers declined to consider it. Yarbro's law firm, Bass, Berry & Sims, received a refund. Several Senate Republicans declared a conflict of interest when voting for the bill in March 2024, including Sen. Shane Reeves of Murfreesboro, CEO of TwelveStone Health Partners, which is listed as receiving a refund. Reeves said via text message Tuesday he was 'comfortable' with the reporting ranges in regard to the franchise and excise tax law and said they 'seemed like a fair compromise.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
TN immigration enforcement division to be largely exempt from state public records laws
Records made by a recently-created state immigration enforcement office, the result of a new law passed in late January, could largely remain secret from the public — drawing concern from First Amendment experts and immigration advocates. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed the immigration bill on Feb. 12, establishing a new state enforcement office which will act as a liaison between local and federal officers on immigration issues. The law largely exempts from the new office from public records laws. The law also criminalizes local officials who vote for sanctuary policies. More: Tennessee GOP passes immigration law to criminalize elected officials' votes An amendment filed shortly before the law passed states that any information collected by the enforcement office or chief immigration enforcement officer, including but not limited to 'sensitive or confidential law enforcement information' collected at the federal, state or local level, can remain confidential. This makes the newly created division almost entirely exempt from the Tennessee Public Records Act, meaning that while the office could release whatever information it wants, members of the media and public can de denied nearly any information requested from it. Lee spokesperson Elizabeth Johnson said the new law 'creates a robust framework to strengthen immigration enforcement across Tennessee,' adding that the public records exemption is 'consistent with current department practice.' 'Gov. Lee remains committed to transparency, while recognizing the need to ensure that law enforcement operations are not compromised,' Johnson said. 'The Department will process public records requests consistent with Tennessee state law.' Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, cautioned that the law is written to exempt far more than just law enforcement operations. 'The exemption is much broader than that and basically says any records it collects or receives…could be confidential,' Fisher said. 'That is a big swath of records, and it's too broad. And I fear that what we will know about this immigration division will be largely what the division wants to tell the public, rather than what's actually going on.' The push to pass the immigration measure was seen by many proponents as a way to help further President Donald Trump's immigration policies. The legislation will fund a $5 million office within the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, allowing Lee to tap an enforcement director and incentivize local law enforcement entities to enter into contracts with federal immigration authorities. Local law enforcement can already apply for the federal contract program, called 287(g) agreements. Currently, only Knox and Greene counties have such agreements. Davidson County dropped its coordination agreement in 2012 after a string of controversies that gained national attention. Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, who sponsored the amendment exempting the division from current public records laws, told the Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee in January that the amendment made the new division's records-keeping more consistent with current exemptions. 'It also extends — and this is an important component for safety — the confidentiality protections for law enforcement records already held by Department of Safety to also apply to documents maintained by the newly established immigration enforcement division,' he said. But current exemptions for the Department of Safety and Homeland Security only pertain to criminal investigations, handgun permits, motor vehicle records and other similar administrative forms. Issues of immigration enforcement are often considered civil matters, not criminal. And the language of the bill does not limit the records kept confidential to law enforcement records, but rather to any record deemed 'sensitive.' Jason Pack, communications director at the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, defended the need to classify documents as sensitive, saying the provision is "designed to protect information that could compromise enforcement efforts, endanger individuals, or reveal operational strategies." "The 'sensitive' classification isn't arbitrary — decisions will be based on objective factors, similar to how the Department of Safety and Homeland Security already handles security-related records," he said. "The goal isn't to withhold information without cause, but to ensure that law enforcement operations are not compromised." Fisher emphasized the public has a right to information collected by such an agency. 'I think the public has an interest in the progress toward the immigration enforcement goals, and the public has committed a huge chunk of change to it,' Fisher said. 'In my mind, they need to know if it gets any results, and this seems to shield any access to records.' Fisher compared the action to the law passed last year that similarly allowed records from the Tennessee Department of Tourism Development to be exempt from public records if the tourism commissioner and attorney general deem them 'sensitive.' 'Sometimes these things get written really broadly, because they wanted to give them the most latitude possible to keep information confidential,' she said. 'But the public records law exists to assure the right of the public to records.' Gunita Singh, a staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the usage of the word 'sensitive' to block an unknown number of records is concerning. 'The language of the recently passed bill is troubling,' she said. 'What is a 'sensitive' document? Who gets to decide? The language as written imparts too much discretion onto the record custodian when exemptions to public records should be as narrow as possible to maximize public access.' Singh said the state's public records law contains an 'explicit presumption in favor of disclosure,' so as to 'give the fullest possible access to public records.' 'This bill flies in the face of that longstanding principle,' she said. Emily Stotts, legal director at Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors, a nonpartisan pro-bono legal team specializing in immigration services, said the new law feels like a 'witch hunt.' 'I think what some of this legislation is doing, both federally and locally, is just causing a lot more fear amongst the (immigrant) communities,' she said, adding the portion of the law that criminalizes local votes for sanctuary policies is especially concerning. The organization largely serves impoverished clients, particularly in humanitarian-based immigration cases — like asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, DACA applicants, and more — and family-based immigration cases, which includes reuniting families that are often of mixed-status citizenship. Over the past year, the group served over 800 clients. Currently, Stotts said the organization has temporarily paused taking on new clients due to the current, heavy case load that has resulted from the rapidly changing federal and state immigration responses. The new immigration enforcement division did not come as a surprise to the organization, Stotts said, though the law is causing panic in vulnerable communities looking for legal help. 'Tennessee has been not an immigrant-friendly state for as long as I've been practicing law,' she said. 'And so that's not really changing ... but it's sort of causing this hysteria.' Amid the increasing pace of newly passed immigration laws, both at the federal and state level, Stotts said a lack of public transparency is of paramount concern. 'I worry about that with any law — not just immigration law — but anytime something lacks transparency,' she said. 'It should be a red flag.' Melissa Brown contributed to this report. The USA TODAY Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@ by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: TN immigration division to be largely exempt from public records laws
