An Act relative to DOR interest rate parity
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to take a stance, submit a written position, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill addresses the consistency between interest rates charged by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and those prevailing in the financial markets. Currently, there appears to be a discrepancy between the interest rates the DOR uses and those generally available. The bill aims to establish a parity between these rates, ensuring that the DOR’s interest rate practices align with market standards. This is intended to promote fairness and transparency in how the state manages its financial obligations.
Key provisions
- Establishes a framework for aligning the Department of Revenue’s interest rate practices.
- Aims to ensure consistency between DOR interest rates and prevailing market rates.
- Likely involves reviewing and potentially adjusting the DOR’s current interest rate methodologies.
- May require the DOR to report on its current interest rate policies.
- Could include provisions for periodic reviews of interest rate parity.
Who is affected
- The Department of Revenue (DOR)
- Taxpayers in Massachusetts
- State government financial operations
Notable changes
- Potentially changes the way the Department of Revenue calculates and applies interest rates on outstanding debts.
- May require the DOR to adopt a more market-based approach to interest rate determination.
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
6 on record
Primary sponsor
Bradley H. Jones Jr.
Cosponsors
Bradley H. Jones Jr.
Kimberly N. Ferguson
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours