OPINION: The occupation tax — passing the sniff test

Commissioners keep sniffing at it, trying to determine whether to keep it or toss it out to the dogs.

The BOC approved the occupation tax — a less likable phrase for “business license” — in unincorporated areas of the county last year, but it seems like every few months, the tax matter comes up again, and the same old discussion ensues: “OK, now why do we need this?” one commissioner asks. And then another will point out why the license was initially proposed.

Despite media coverage of the matter, commissioners noted that the public remained in the dark about tax deadlines and requirements. So, the board completely scrapped the plan for 2008, agreeing to launch it this year. The tax includes a fee schedule, with a per-employee charge tacked onto a base fee.

But even that still seems like a twangy tuna spoonful that no commissioner wants to raise to his lips. And commissioners will soon consider further revisions, perhaps eliminating the per employee fee from the tax.

Actually, the issue was on Monday night’s agenda, but board tabled the matter since the head of the building inspections department, who enforces the tax, was unable to attend due to illness.

Well, let’s reverse gears and remember how the proposal began.

Former Madison County District 4 commissioner Wesley Jordan pushed for the tax, noting that it would allow contractors who must have a business license to do work in other counties to pay for one license, rather than numerous licenses elsewhere. The tax would also help the government to compile a list of what businesses are actually in the county, giving people a better understanding of what business opportunities are available to them.

These are both worthwhile goals.

But a number of people say the tax does nothing for businesses except dig into their pockets, a bad move during tough economic times.

They have a point.

“As the owners of two very small businesses we are barely holding on; every penny counts,” wrote one blogger regarding the tax. “I say scrap it. We already pay through the nose.”

Well, could the BOC narrow their focus? For instance, could the county establish an optional business permit, something that the building inspections office could provide to contractors who want some official permitting to show when they travel to other counties? The inspections office could establish a fee for that license, as well as certain criteria for what you must do to get the license. For instance, you probably don’t want to give county certification to someone who says he’s a plumber unless he can provide at least some evidence that he performs such work. The home business operator could be charged a fee for having a building inspector travel to his house for a face-to-face visit prior to the issuance of a permit.

Meanwhile, the building inspections office could work on compiling a list of all businesses in Madison County, something that would prove beneficial. The county could require licensing for any home business to be included, which could add legitimacy to the listing, perhaps keeping some scammers away.

The occupation tax was launched with good intentions. But with so many businesses struggling to stay afloat, another county tax seems like a bad move by the Madison County government.

As it stands, the occupational tax seems like a sweeping measure to accomplish narrow goals.

If the BOC could narrow the focus, try to find a way to compile a business list and to provide needed permitting to small contractors, without imposing new fees on everyone else, well, then this could probably pass the sniff test.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.