ShareThis Page
Wolf’s unexpected veto |

Wolf’s unexpected veto

On Nov. 4, Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed House Bill 245. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Pennsylvania taxpayers are not double-taxed by local jurisdictions that levy a local earned income tax. The language in HB 245 provided greater uniformity and clarity in the collection of local income taxes.

Sponsored by Rep. George Dunbar (R-Penn Township), HB 245 was crafted with input from CPA tax practitioners, including members of the Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs. The bill provides consistency to the local earned income tax crediting provisions for all taxpayers — an important protection from double taxation. Other protection provisions include limited oversight of the local tax system by the Department of Community and Economic Development, a prohibition against charging taxpayers with no income a fee when they do not file a return, and clarification of the withholding tax rates for employees on a temporary assignment.

According to Dunbar, the veto justification the governor offered “demonstrates a clear lack of understanding” about the type of oversight and clarifications the legislation offered.

While CPAs are disappointed by Wolf’s unexpected veto, we will work to have this pro-taxpayer bill reintroduced in the new session.

Lisa A. Myers


The writer, a CPA, is president of the Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.