Couple tax items have caught my attention.  Tonight on WHIO there was a story telling us the city is planning on asking for an income tax levy.  This would mean voters would be voting in both a school property tax levy and a city income tax levy in the May 7th election.   I was also reading David Esrati's site where he pointed out a DDN article talking about Riverside council being able to raise the Riverside income tax rate without having to go to the voters.  As a side note Mr Esrati also had a critical article about the proposed Music Center.
 
I'm going to talk about the Riverside income tax hike in the rest of this post.  Basically, Riverside council believes that they do not have to be reciprocal with other municipalities when it comes to income tax.  I have been under the impression that if both the place that you work and the place that you live had income taxes then you paid the income tax to the place that you worked (unless the place that you live has a higher tax rate then you pay what is left over to the place that you live).  What Riverside seems to think is that this arrangement is voluntary and they can make their citizens pay both.  A couple weeks ago I heard an NPR story that Cincinnati also thinks this is the way the law is written. 
 
I have a couple opinions on municipal income tax.  First I don't like the whole taxation without representation aspect of the work related personal income tax.  The way the system is set up now is that if you work somewhere other than where you live then you don't get a vote on your tax rate. 
 
The second item is that I was under the impression that it was state law that mandated cities reciprocate.  Looking in ORC 718 I could find one reference to cities "crediting" citizens for paying other locality taxes.  This was section 718.121.  The title of this section is "Second municipality imposing tax after time period allowed for refund".  This section obviously mandates the credit but I don't understand the entire "after time period" legaleeze.  I believe this is the section that applies and this "after time period" is a the best way they could phrase it.  If so then Riverside would be required to issue the credit and council would not be able to just take a vote amongst themselves to revoke the credit.
 
I'd appreciate any further information on this subject you can find.  I personally am strictly against this tactic of raising taxes without a vote by the citizens of the city.  I'd like to know if this is one of the options city council could take if they don't get their way in May.  Update --  I just found a DDN article that states the city is considering the same income tax hike as Riverside.

I am looking at the Huber Heights Ordinances on Income Tax there are two sections that talk about other city income taxes:

Section 191.08 EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX
(n)      The compensation of any individual if all of the following apply:
           (1)     The individual does not reside in the City;
 
           (2)     The compensation is paid for personal services performed by the individual in the City on twelve (12) or fewer days in the calendar year;
 
           (3)     In the case of an individual who is an employee, the principal place of business of that individual’s employer is located outside the City and the individual pays tax on compensation described in division (2) of this section to the City or Village, if any, in which the employer’s principal place of business is located, and no portion of that tax is refunded to the individual.

Section 191.16 CREDIT FOR TAX PAID TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY OR JEDD
(a)      Where a resident of the City is subject to a municipal income tax in another municipality or JEDD, he shall not pay a total municipal income tax on the same income greater than the tax imposed at the highest rate to which he is subject.
 
      (b)     Every individual taxpayer who resides in the City who receives net profits, salaries, wages, commissions, or other personal service compensation for work done or services performed or rendered outside of the City, if it be made to appear that he has paid a municipal income tax on the same income to another municipality or JEDD, shall be allowed a credit against the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter of the amount so paid by him or in his behalf to the other municipality or JEDD.  The credit shall not exceed the tax imposed on the income earned in the other municipality or JEDD or municipalities where the tax is paid.

Do these sections look like something a city would voluntarily put into their tax code?

Assuming the state doesn't mandate the credit (although I believe they do), can council vote to get rid of the tax credit?  

I'm looking at the resolution council passed in order to put a new tax levy on the ballot in 2012.  The language used in this resolution

"SUBJECT TO ALL CREDITS CURRENTLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE HUBER HEIGHTS INCOME TAX ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE CREDIT FOR TAX PAID TO SUCH OTHER CITIES"

indicates to me a contract between the city council and the citizens of Huber Heights that as a condition of their yes vote they will benefit from that credit.  As such council would be required to go to the citizens via another vote in order to remove the credit.  The particular levy I reference did not pass so it is important to go back and look at the ballot measures that actually passed.  If they have similar language then council should not have the authority to change the credit arrangement they negotiated with the citizens.

Yesterday (19 Feb 2013) at the administration committee meeting the committee chair told the people in attendance that council would not put a tax levy on the ballot in 2013.