LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                              Austin, Texas
                                     
                    FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
  
                              March 27, 2001
  
  
          TO:  Honorable Rene Oliveira, Chair, House Committee on Ways &
               Means
  
        FROM:  John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
  
       IN RE:  HB3272  by Oliveira (Relating to the time period for the
               sales and use tax exemption for clothing and footwear.),
               As Introduced
  
**************************************************************************
*  Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for    *
*  HB3272, As Introduced: a negative impact of $(121,095,000) through    *
*  the biennium ending August 31, 2003, if the effective date of the     *
*  bill is July 1, 2001; and a negative impact of $(70,718,000)          *
*  through the biennium ending August 31, 2003, if the effective date    *
*  of the bill is October 1, 2001.                                       *
**************************************************************************
  
The following table assumes an effective date of July 1, 2001.
  
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
  
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal      Probable        Probable        Probable        Probable     *
* Year       Revenue         Revenue         Revenue         Revenue      *
*         Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  *
*        General Revenue      Cities         Transit      Counties/SPDs   *
*              Fund                        Authorities                    *
*              0001                                                       *
*  2001     $(17,833,000)              $0              $0              $0 *
*  2002      (50,850,000)     (9,181,000)     (3,543,000)     (1,086,000) *
*  2003      (52,412,000)     (9,464,000)     (3,652,000)     (1,120,000) *
*  2004      (54,413,000)     (9,825,000)     (3,791,000)     (1,162,000) *
*  2005      (56,636,000)    (10,226,000)     (3,946,000)     (1,210,000) *
*  2006      (58,861,000)    (10,628,000)     (4,101,000)     (1,257,000) *
***************************************************************************
  
The following table assumes an effective date of October 1, 2001.
  
***************************************************************************
*Fiscal      Probable        Probable        Probable        Probable     *
* Year       Revenue         Revenue         Revenue         Revenue      *
*         Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  Gain/(Loss) to  *
*        General Revenue      Cities         Transit      Counties/SPDs   *
*              Fund                        Authorities                    *
*              0001                                                       *
*  2002     $(18,306,000)              $0              $0              $0 *
*  2003      (52,412,000)     (9,464,000)     (3,652,000)     (1,120,000) *
*  2004      (54,413,000)     (9,825,000)     (3,791,000)     (1,162,000) *
*  2005      (56,636,000)    (10,226,000)     (3,946,000)     (1,210,000) *
*  2006      (58,861,000)    (10,628,000)     (4,101,000)     (1,257,000) *
***************************************************************************
  
Fiscal Analysis
  
The bill would amend Chapter 151 of the Tax Code to extend the limited
sales tax exemption for certain clothing and footwear from the current
three-day period to ten days.  The exemption would take place each
August. 

The bill would take effect July 1, 2001 if it received the requisite
two-thirds majority votes in both houses of the Legislature.  Otherwise,
it would take effect October 1, 2001.
  
  
Methodology
  
Estimates were based on the fiscal impact of the current three-day
holiday, using Comptroller tax files.  These were adjusted for the
expanded time period and potential effective dates of July 1, 2001 and
October 1, 2001.  The fiscal impacts on units of local government were
estimated proportionally.
  
  
Local Government Impact
  
Local units of government would have a corresponding fiscal impact from
sales tax revenues, as indicated in the table above.
  
  
Source Agencies:   304   Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff:         JK, SD, SM