Committee Summary for Senate Ways and Means (02/04/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB155 00:00:00.160 - 8:30:34 AM	Public Hearing	reducing the rate of the business enterprise tax.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A]2025
SB652 01:11:53.520 - 9:42:27 AM	Public Hearing	changing the maximum award of tax credits for overpayment of due taxes.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB654 01:17:25.040 - 9:47:59 AM	Public Hearing	creating tax credits for businesses that have on-site child care services and for businesses that provide health care coverage for certain employees.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025
SB654 -	Executive Session	creating tax credits for businesses that have on-site child care services and for businesses that provide health care coverage for certain employees.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025
SB404 -	Executive Session	relative to economic revitalization zone tax credits.	Gray, James(R)[B-]2025
SB635 -	Executive Session	establishing a health reimbursement arrangement tax credit program.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025
SB561 -	Executive Session	relative to change of address for certain game operator employer licensees.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
HB155 -	Executive Session	reducing the rate of the business enterprise tax.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A]2025

HB155: Representative Joe Sweeney, Salem Support00:00:00.160 - 8:30:34 AM; Representative Joe Sweeney introduced HB 155, which reduces the business enterprise tax (BET) from 0.55% to 0.50%, effective 2027. He highlighted New Hampshire's successful history of reducing business taxes since 2015, attracting businesses from neighboring states like Massachusetts to areas such as Salem. He noted support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and emphasized that tax cuts promote economic growth, provide relief to small businesses, and maintain the New Hampshire Advantage. During questioning, he addressed concerns about economic outcomes, tracking mechanisms, fiscal impacts, and timing, arguing that tax reductions create a positive business climate, encourage hiring, and compete regionally without needing precise forecasts, as future legislatures can adjust.
HB155: Scott Shepard, Barrington Information Only00:14:14.399 - 8:44:48 AM; Scott Shepard presented fiscal stress tests of New Hampshire's budget using official revenue forecasts and historical recession scenarios. He explained that while the state hasn't faced a multi-year downturn recently, planning should account for bad economic times. His modeling shows recessions could create budget gaps of hundreds of millions, recommending reserves of 10-15% of annual revenue. He noted current draws on the rainy day fund during economic strength increase risks and suggested safeguards like official stress testing and reserve targets before tax cuts. He is not opposed to HB 155 in principle but emphasized financial prudence. In responses, he advocated building reserves to 12-15% to avoid past issues like property tax shifts and supported triggers tied to reserve targets for tax cuts.
HB155: Viola Katsime, Granite State Organizing Project Oppose00:19:13.760 - 8:49:47 AM; Viola Katsime opposed HB 155 due to the state's housing shortage and recent attempts to claw back funds from the Housing Champions program, which helps communities update zoning for more development. She highlighted the projected $26 million revenue loss in 2027, arguing it exacerbates revenue shortages needed for programs like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which saw no budget increases. She urged rejecting the bill to maintain funding for critical housing initiatives amid rising homelessness.
HB155: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support00:21:19.919 - 8:51:53 AM; Greg Moore supported HB 155, focusing on why the BET and why now. He explained the BET disproportionately affects small businesses, providing relief amid rising costs like utilities and wages, addressing New Hampshire's top issue of cost of living. He shared an anecdote of a tech startup leaving New Hampshire for Massachusetts due to the BET's impact on unprofitable firms, arguing it acts as a disincentive for relocation. On timing, he noted neighboring states' regressive policies on taxes and regulations, positioning New Hampshire as a competitive outlier. During questioning, he clarified that not raising taxes isn't enough; ongoing reductions send a positive directional message. He distinguished business attractions from individual ones, emphasizing tax structure as New Hampshire's advantage, and noted that despite prior reductions, business tax revenues have climbed.
HB155: Bridget Murphy, Seacoast Oppose00:37:36.079 - 9:08:10 AM; Bridget Murphy, an early childhood educator and nanny from the Seacoast, testified against HB 155, emphasizing the housing affordability crisis in New Hampshire. She highlighted skyrocketing property taxes, rents, and childcare costs driving young families out of the state, and argued that the bill's minor tax cut primarily benefits large corporations like McDonald's and Walmart rather than small businesses. Citing NHFPI data, she noted the $300 average savings for filers is insufficient for hiring or benefits, and past tax cuts have led to significant revenue losses, harming public services like schools, mental health, and education funding. She urged the committee to prioritize constituents over corporations and vote no.
HB155: Mackenzie Nicholson, Moms Rising Oppose00:46:21.599 - 9:16:55 AM; Mackenzie Nicholson, co-senior director of Moms Rising, opposed HB 155, describing it as a corporate tax giveaway that reduces state revenue by $26 million annually while providing minimal benefits to small businesses (about $565 on average, with half seeing none). She discussed the childcare crisis, with costs averaging $30,000 yearly for infants and toddlers, forcing 17,300 parents out of the workforce in 2024. This lost revenue shifts burdens to property taxpayers, exacerbating high property taxes. She suggested the $26 million could fund 2,000 childcare slots or workforce initiatives, stressing the need for investments in childcare, housing, and healthcare over tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. She urged an ITL vote.
HB155: Marissa Emanuel, Dover Oppose00:52:35.599 - 9:23:09 AM; Marissa Emanuel, a self-employed marketing consultant from Dover, spoke against HB 155 on behalf of disenfranchised residents unable to attend due to work and childcare constraints. She argued the bill benefits multinational corporations, not local businesses, with tax cuts since 2015 causing $795 million to $1 billion in lost revenue, no job growth, a $150 million budget shortfall, unconstitutional school underfunding, and last-place higher education funding. As a working parent, she emphasized the need for accessible schools, housing, and childcare, which such cuts undermine. She called on the committee to vote no, noting working families are closely watching.
HB155: Phyllis Mackey, Newfields Oppose00:58:12.160 - 9:28:46 AM; Phyllis Mackey, a retired therapist and former small business owner from Newfields, opposed HB 155, stating the BET was never burdensome for small practices like hers. She highlighted concerns from town deliberative sessions about rising property taxes due to state revenue shortfalls from such cuts, a process called 'downshifting.' While acknowledging it won't greatly affect small businesses, it will significantly impact state revenues, leading to higher property taxes. She urged the committee not to pass the bill.
HB155: Russ Green, Belmont Oppose01:00:01.599 - 9:30:35 AM; Russ Green, a Belmont resident and worker in various fields including tech, opposed HB 155 as corporate welfare creating a $26 million revenue hole, shifting costs to property taxes and cutting education, health, and social programs. He noted New Hampshire's heavy reliance on BET (31% of revenue, double New Jersey's), criticized benefits going to large corporations like Walmart that underpay workers reliant on social welfare, and dismissed the 'Granite State advantage' as neighbors grow without BET cuts. As a worker struggling with housing and loans despite good pay, he urged squashing the bill to serve working people over billionaires.
HB155: Bruce Burke, Pittsfield Oppose01:04:34.880 - 9:35:08 AM; Bruce Burke from Pittsfield testified against HB 155, emphasizing the need to balance business interests with quality of life services. He referenced spring budget meetings where programs faced cuts due to revenue shortfalls. Quoting the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute's analysis of Business Tax reductions from 2016-2022, he noted no evidence of economic growth offsetting lost revenue, estimated at $700 million to $1.2 billion since 2015, and no business advantage over neighboring states. He argued for funding essential services supported by prior speakers.
HB155: Eric Swinson, Moultonborough Oppose01:06:48.960 - 9:37:22 AM; Eric Swinson, a professor of internal medicine at Dartmouth from Moultonborough, opposed HB 155, arguing that any business influx benefits would be outweighed by reduced state services, especially for lower socioeconomic groups. He critiqued the 'live free or die' motto, suggesting it might lead to 'live tax-free and die' by forgoing revenue, resulting in service cuts that burden local governments and harm vulnerable populations, including young people. He proposed targeting exemptions to small businesses rather than large corporations. During questioning, he discussed how recent mental health service cuts could worsen health outcomes across physical and mental spectra, impacting conditions like congestive heart failure.
SB652: Senator Tim Lang, District 2 Support01:11:53.520 - 9:42:27 AM; Senator Tim Lang sponsored SB 652, a technical bill to manage state cash flow by phasing mandatory tax refunds for overpayments, reducing liability held by the state. Inspired by former Representative Norm Major, it spreads refunds over time rather than in large lumps, starting from 500% overpayment threshold and reducing by 50% biennially to 150%, while allowing businesses to request full refunds anytime. He explained it maintains policy but smooths impacts, with fiscal notes showing reduced immediate outflows like $30 million in 2029 spread to $2.8-3.6 million initially. During questions, he clarified the 150% cap accounts for cost-of-living increases to cover 100% liability plus buffer for growth, drafted with DAS input.
SB654: Senator Victoria Sullivan, District 18 Support01:17:25.040 - 9:47:59 AM; Senator Victoria Sullivan sponsored SB 654 to incentivize businesses, especially in biotech, to provide on-site childcare and flexible 'parent hours' (9am-3pm) via tax credits: 20% of qualifying childcare expenditures up to $100,000 per business annually, and 20% of healthcare benefit costs up to $10,000 for employees on parent hours. Developed from discussions with potential businesses, it aims to support working parents, particularly new mothers, by allowing proximity to children. Effective July 1, 2027, to allow planning. She noted few businesses like Timberland currently offer on-site care. Open to aggregate caps for state budgeting, expansions for rural areas, and clarifications on healthcare contributions, emphasizing benefits for part-time parents and family bonding. Expressed disappointment that childcare advocates didn't testify.
SB654: Brian Clark, DHHS Information Only01:27:55.600 - 9:58:29 AM; Brian Clark, counsel for the Bureau of Child Development and Head Start Collaboration at DHHS, provided information on the department's role in SB 654. He expressed concern that DHHS lacks experience in writing tax rules, yet the bill requires them to define qualifying expenditures for credits. He clarified that licensed childcare could qualify for scholarships, but integrating tax rules into DHHS administrative code might confuse taxpayers filing returns.
SB654: Jennifer Ramsey, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only01:30:15.199 - 10:00:49 AM; Jennifer Ramsey from the Department of Revenue Administration presented technical concerns regarding the drafting of SB 654. She noted the absence of an applicability date for the tax year when the credit could first be claimed and suggested options for specifying it. She clarified potential confusion in the bill's language about whether the 20% credit up to $100,000 applies per taxpayer's tax year or the state's fiscal year, emphasizing that the former would be less administratively burdensome. She recommended changing 'rolled over' to 'carried forward' and 'older credits shall be rolled over first' to 'utilized first' for clarity. Regarding the waiver of recapture requirements, she sought guidance on circumstances and discretion factors to avoid issues for the commissioner. For split credits between taxpayers, she suggested requiring an agreement on recapture and providing guidance on handling non-compliance. She pointed out that 'dependents' needs definition, as it has a specific tax meaning, and could refer to children needing care or under a certain age. She warned that capping the program like the R&D tax credit would require applications, proration, additional staff, and system upgrades costing around $40,000. Finally, she noted that the broad rulemaking authority for qualifying expenditures exceeds current limits, suggesting guide rails in law for DRA or DHS.

Lang, Timothy(Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Murphy, Keith(V Chairman)(R)[A]2025	Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[F]2025
Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2025	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025