WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3077

Family Court

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Gil Gatch

Expands MA sales-tax exemption to include keeping horses as a commercial enterprise, easing tax burden on boarding and breeding farms and helping protect agricultural land.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3077

Summary — H 3077 (House Docket No. 1863) — "Family Court" / An Act to further the protection of agricultural land

Note: the legislative text supplied appears to combine two distinct items. The primary Massachusetts bill (House No. 3077 / Docket 1863) is an amendment to Massachusetts sales-tax law to treat the commercial keeping of horses like certain agricultural production activities. The record also includes an unrelated South Carolina draft amending contempt penalties in Family Court; that text appears to be concatenated in error. The summary below focuses on the Massachusetts bill and then briefly flags the unrelated South Carolina material.

Purpose

To expand an existing sales-tax exemption in Massachusetts so that "the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise" is explicitly included alongside other agricultural production activities—intended to support agricultural land protection and the commercial equine/agricultural sector.

Key provisions

  • Amends paragraph (r) and paragraph (s) of Section 6 of Chapter 64H of the Massachusetts General Laws (sales tax exemptions).
  • Inserts the phrase "; the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise." after the word "production" in each paragraph cited.
  • Effect: commercial activities involving the keeping of horses would be treated as exempt (or as part of the same exemption category) under the referenced provisions of the sales-tax statute.

(References in bill text: paragraph (r) and (s) of section 6, chapter 64H — as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition.)

Who would be affected

  • Directly affected: owners/operators of commercial equine enterprises in Massachusetts (e.g., boarding stables, breeding operations, commercial horse farms) that meet whatever criteria apply for the referenced agricultural exemption.
  • Indirectly affected: agricultural landowners and farms that incorporate equine activities; veterinarians and suppliers serving commercial equine operations.
  • Fiscal impact: potential reduction in state sales tax revenue to the extent that taxable transactions related to commercial horse-keeping are reclassified as exempt. The bill text does not include a fiscal estimate.

Procedural status and timeline (as provided)

  • Prefiled: 12/05/2024
  • Filed / House Docket No. 1863: 01/15/2025
  • Introduced and read first time: 01/14/2025 (record shows both 01/14 and 01/15 filings)
  • Referred to Committee on Judiciary: 01/14/2025 and 12/05/2024 (duplicate entries in record)
  • Referred to Committee on Revenue: 02/27/2025
  • Senate concurred: 02/27/2025 (notation in record)
  • Hearing scheduled: 07/15/2025, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM in A-1

(Records show some inconsistent or duplicate procedural entries—see Notes below.)

Potential policy implications

  • Encourages commercial equine activity by reducing sales-tax burdens, which proponents may argue supports agricultural land preservation, farm viability, and rural economies.
  • May modestly reduce state sales-tax receipts; the magnitude would depend on the scope of transactions reclassified as exempt.
  • Raises definitional/administrative questions: what constitutes "keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise" (boarding vs. hobby), and how the Department of Revenue would administer and verify qualification.

Notes and discrepancies

  • The document also includes two identical drafts of a South Carolina bill (S.C. Code §63-3-620) concerning contempt penalties in Family Court. That material appears unrelated to H 3077 and may have been concatenated in error. The South Carolina draft concerns punishment options for contempt (fine, public works, imprisonment) and an effective date clause; it does not clearly match the Massachusetts subject matter.
  • The bill title shown ("Family Court") does not match the Massachusetts tax/amendment content (agricultural protection / horse-keeping exemption). Procedural entries in the supplied record contain some inconsistent dates and committee referrals.

If you want, I can:
- Draft likely statutory language and a short fiscal note outline for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, or
- Extract and clarify the unrelated South Carolina Family Court contempt bill as a separate summary.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.