Tax Commission secrecy
Secrecy and taxation don’t mix. If bureaucrats and political appointees want to pave a road to revolution, they need only lock the public out of hearings where tax refunds are granted to a privileged few, then offer no explanation to the duped masses.
The Nevada Tax Commission used to conduct business in just such a fashion, deliberating and voting on select taxpayer appeals in secret. In 2005, after being ordered by then-Attorney General George Chanos to conduct their votes in an open session, commissioners refused and granted the Southern California Edison a $40 million refund behind closed doors.
By asserting that its appeal included proprietary, confidential information, the utility was allowed to have its hearing in the shadows. The resulting dispute forced taxpayers to cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend the very officials who wanted the public kept in the dark.
This was no small, procedural squabble. Even the slightest hint that laws might be applied unevenly — and taxes assessed unfairly — can undermine public confidence in all facets of government.
More than two years after the Southern California Edison debacle, the Tax Commission finally appears willing to embrace at least part of Nevada’s open meeting law and the importance of keeping the public’s business public. On Monday, commissioners adopted a new regulation that requires a taxpaying individual or business to request a closed hearing in writing at least two weeks before a scheduled appearance. This is an improvement — where a taxpayer used to be able to get a closed hearing on request, now the commission must balance the consequences of secrecy against the public’s right to know before closing its doors. And even if the request for a closed hearing is granted, a vote on a requested refund must take place in open session, also an improvement over past practices.
Unfortunately, the good news ends there. Under the regulation, the commission gets to consider the request and deliberate in closed session. How is the public supposed to trust the integrity of this process if they’re denied access to the debate that results in a decision to grant a multimillion-dollar rebate?
“I think this is a great ending to what was a difficult story to start with,” Commission Chairman Thom Sheets said after the vote.
It’s a great ending only for those who favor secrecy in taxation. Which means it’s no ending at all — only the beginning of another fight for openness.