Bill
H 3057
Massachusetts would replace its corporate minimum tax with a tiered schedule based on Massachusetts sales, setting minimums from $456 to $150,000 for firms doing business there.
Note on source material
- The materials you provided include two distinct bill texts mixed together: (A) a Massachusetts House bill (House No. 3057 / H.3057) that would establish a tiered corporate minimum tax, and (B) a South Carolina bill (filed 12/05/2024) that would create the offense of unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit materials. The title you supplied ("Unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit materials") matches the South Carolina text, but the docket/house number and some actions correspond to the Massachusetts submission. Below I summarize both bills separately and clearly indicate their state, purpose, key provisions, affected parties, and procedural status.
1) Massachusetts — House No. 3057 (H.3057) — “An Act establishing a tiered corporate minimum tax”
Purpose / intent
- Replace the existing corporate minimum tax with a tiered schedule based on a corporation’s total sales in Massachusetts.
Key provisions
- Amends G.L. c.63, §39(b) to set the following minimum tax schedule (based on total sales in the commonwealth as determined under G.L. c.63, §38(f)):
- <$1,000,000 in sales: $456 minimum tax
- ≥$1,000,000 and < $5,000,000: $1,500
- ≥$5,000,000 and < $10,000,000: $2,500
- ≥$10,000,000 and < $25,000,000: $3,500
- ≥$25,000,000 and < $50,000,000: $5,000
- ≥$50,000,000 and < $100,000,000: $10,000
- ≥$100,000,000 and < $500,000,000: $25,000
- ≥$500,000,000 and < $1,000,000,000: $75,000
- ≥$1,000,000,000: $150,000
Who is affected
- Corporations doing business in Massachusetts (including multistate corporations whose Massachusetts sales are determined under existing apportionment rules). Smaller firms benefit from a relatively low floor ($456) while very large firms face substantially higher minimums.
Procedural / timeline notes
- Introduced 1/14/2025 by Rep. Mike Connolly (with Manny Cruz listed on the petition). Referred to the Joint Committee on Revenue on 2/27/2025. Additional members added as sponsors (Mitchell, Rankin, Long, Oremus, Gibson, Lawson, Burns, Edgerton, Vaughan). Hearing scheduled/updated for 10/03/2025 (Gardner Auditorium).
2) South Carolina — Proposed addition of Section 16-15-260 — “Unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit materials”
Purpose / intent
- Create a criminal offense for knowingly disseminating or selling sexually explicit visual depictions of another person without license/privilege when the depicted person suffers emotional distress or embarrassment and absent a clear public purpose.
Key provisions
- Makes it unlawful (absent clear public purpose) to disseminate/sell pictures, drawings, videos, digital files, or reproductions depicting a person in a state of sexually explicit nudity (as defined in SC §16-15-375) when:
1) the disseminator knows or has reason to know they are not licensed/privileged to disseminate or sell the material; and
2) the depicted person suffers emotional distress or embarrassment.
- Penalty: misdemeanor punishable by up to $1,000 fine or up to one year imprisonment.
- Effective upon gubernatorial approval.
Who is affected
- Individuals or entities who create, reproduce, sell, or disseminate sexually explicit visual material of others without authorization; potential enforcement against “revenge porn” and similar misconduct. The law would also hinge on the statutory definition of “sexually explicit nudity” and the “clear public purpose” exception.
Procedural / timeline notes
- The SC text provided is filed (dated 12/05/2024) and states it takes effect on approval by the Governor. No additional SC legislative actions are listed in the material you provided.
Next steps / offer
- Which of these two bills would you like a deeper analysis of (fiscal impact, likely stakeholders, constitutional questions, or comparative law)? I can also consolidate legislative history and possible budgetary effects for the Massachusetts tax bill or draft a policy brief on enforcement and constitutional issues for the South Carolina proposal.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
