House Bill 1167 – Child and dependent care tax credit. Rep. Buell:

Provides a refundable income tax credit to individuals for certain household, child care, or dependent care expenses associated with an individual’s gainful employment. Provides that the amount of the credit is 50% of the federal child and dependent care credit. Provides that an individual whose federal adjusted gross income exceeds $45,000 is not eligible for the credit.

The legislation references section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code which specifies “employment-related expenses” as expenses for household services and care of the child, including daycare, if the expenses are incurred to enable gainful employment.

[tags]HB1167-2007, taxation[/tags]

House Bill 1163 – Subcontractor liens. Rep. Orentlicher:

Provides that a contractor must pay all subcontractors within five business days after receiving payment from a homeowner or builder. Provides that a builder must disclose to a purchaser all subcontractors used in new home construction. Requires a contractor to provide notice to all subcontractors when the contractor has been paid by a homeowner or builder. Prohibits a subcontractor from filing a lien against a property if the primary contractor has received full payment for the contract. Allows a subcontractor to file an action against a prime contractor to recover any unpaid claims due under a contract between the prime contractor and the subcontractor.

Rep. Orentlicher delves into the exciting world of mechanic’s liens. I groan a little bit every time one of these cases comes across my desk. But, it’s generally a good way to get paid if you’re a contractor. There are generally two sets of rules for a laborer who wants to get paid for construction work, there being more hoops to jump through if the construction in question is a primary residence and less if the construction is something else. If the contractor adds value to construction, he can place a lien against the property until he gets paid. If, for some reason, the general contractor stiffs the subcontractor, the subcontractor has the option of foreclosing on his lien on the property, meaning the property owner has to pay up. The property owner then most likely has a cause of action against the general contractor. It puts the risk on the shoulders of the property owner rather than the laborer. Understandably, lawmakers have been more reluctant to have Joe Homeowner find himself embroiled in these kinds of messes and have offered more safeguards for primary residential properties.

Under this bill, a contractor would be required to notify subcontractors within one day of receiving full payment for the contract. Apparently no action is required if the contractor receives partial payment. The contractor is required to pay the subcontractor within 5 days of receiving payment.

I think the bill is worded a bit awkwardly. In subsection “c” it says that a contractor paid in full has to send notices out to subcontractors within 1 day. Then in subsection “d” it says full payment has to be made to subcontractors within 5 days of sending out the notice. Then, it says that if a prime contractor fails to make payment as described in “d,” the subcontractor can’t file a lien. So, my question is, what happens if the contractor never sends out the notices as required in “c”? Then the time period in “d” is never triggered and, therefore, arguably, the lien prohibition in “e” is also never triggered.

In any event, I like the notice requirement to subcontractors. It might not be a bad idea for all mechanic’s lien situations, not just residential. But, I’m a little uncomfortable about the lien prohibition. It basically turns laborers into unsecured creditors. In return, the laborers don’t get very much. They get a requirement that the general contractor send out a notice of payment, but I don’t see any special penalties to the contractor for noncompliance. The bill also says that the laborers can sue the general contractor for nonpayment. Big deal. They can already do that.

[tags] HB1163-2007, liens, labor[/tags]

This bill would apparently affect only primary residence construction.

Relegated to the minority, the House Republicans have whittled their priorities to four main goals. This story is several days old. I know TDW and others have commented on it. But one quote from minority leader Bosma caught my eye.

First, the 4 priorities: preventing general tax increases, cracking down on crime, making changes to education and promoting economic development.

The part that caught my eye:

One proposal would require violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, said he has concerns about the potential cost of keeping people in prison longer.

“Every action has a reaction,” he said.

Bosma said officials are working to determine the long-term fiscal impact of the proposal.

“I almost don’t care what the fiscal is,” Bosma said. “The government’s top priority is to make our neighbors safe. They are not safe today.”

Sure, passing “tough on crime” longer sentences makes you feel better. It might even make you feel safer. But I don’t think the evidence shows that longer incarcerations, beyond a certain point, will actually make you safer. It will certainly cost more.

Unconcerned about the fiscal impact of longer sentences, opposed to a general tax increase, and in favor of locking up criminals for longer periods of time. Certainly, these things aren’t out of the main stream — but how do you harmonize these goals? I suppose you have to either cut government services or dump more burdens on local governments. In the 2005 budget, the General Assembly mainly chose the latter. In any event, we can’t let our emotions — in this case, fear of crime — impair our reason. We have to figure out what works to prevent crime and whether we can afford implementation. We can’t just build more prisons because it feels good.

Senate Bill 0199 – Sen. Miller. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to provide adoption services for value, unless you are (generally speaking) the prospective parent, the government, or approved by a court. Adoption services means:

(1) Arranging for the placement of a child.
(2) Identifying a child for adoption.
(3) Matching adoptive parents with biological parents.
(4) Arranging or facilitating an adoption.
(5) Taking or acknowledging consents or surrenders for termination of parental rights for adoption purposes.
(6) Performing background studies on a child who is going to be adopted or adoptive parents.
(7) Making determinations concerning the best interests of a child and the appropriateness in placing the child for adoption.
(8) Postplacement monitoring of a child before the child is adopted.

[tags]SB199-2007, adoption[/tags]

Senate Bill 0126 – Sen. Dillon.

The bureaucracy hungers for data:

Beginning in 2008, each school corporation shall annually report to the state department of health the height, weight, ethnicity, age, and sex of the school corporation’s students.

The data has to be reported in a way that does not make students personally identifiable. I don’t have any particular beef against collecting this information. But, it’s part of the drip, drip, drip of bureaucratic reporting requirements that ends up consuming a lot of the energy of the entire system.

[tags]SB126-2007, education[/tags]

Senate Bill 212 – Sen. Ford:

Electronic documents as estate property. Requires a person who electronically stores the documents or information of another person who is deceased, to give the personal representative of the estate access to, or copies of, the decedent’s stored documents or information. Prohibits a custodian from destroying or disposing of the documents or information of the deceased person for two years after the custodian receives: (1) a request for access to the electronically stored documents or information from the personal representative; or (2) a court order.

The text of the bill reveals that “custodian” means any person who electronically stores the documents or information of another person. So, I’m wondering, does this mean that I would be in violation if I got an e-mail or copy of a document from someone who died I’d have to keep it for 2 years? Do ISPs have to maintain accounts of deceased customers for 2 years?

[tags]SB212-2007, probate, technology[/tags]