This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Topeka, Kan. • With waning political support for an income tax break championed by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, fellow Republicans in the GOP-controlled Legislature are spearheading an effort to end it.

Brownback's revenue secretary, some business owners and groups such as the Kansas Chamber of Commerce strongly defended the tax break in testimony for a Kansas House Taxation Committee hearing Thursday afternoon.

The 2012 policy benefits more than 330,000 farmers and business owners, and Brownback contends it fuels growth among small businesses.

But he and his allies are fighting political headwinds, considering voters ousted two dozen conservatives from the Legislature, giving both Democrats and GOP moderates more power.

Plus, Kansas is one of several GOP-led states facing budget woes at least partly due to past tax cuts. Its projected budget shortfall totals $1.1 billion through June 2019.

Brownback's critics had hoped ending the tax exemption for farmers and business owners could cover close to half of those gaps, but figures have differed. The governor already suggested his willingness to negotiate by proposing his own alternative for increasing taxes on business owners.

"It's been building the last couple of years," said state Rep. Susan Concannon, a moderate Beloit Republican who serves on the tax committee. "We're responding to the wants of the people."

At Brownback's urging, lawmakers slashed personal income taxes in 2012 and 2013, dropping the state's top rate by 29 percent. Lawmakers also exempted the profits reported by farmers and owners of limited liability corporations, sole proprietorships and other businesses on their personal income tax returns and not subject to corporate income taxes. The break also covers rents and royalties.

House committee chairman Steven Johnson, an Assaria Republican, is a strong supporter of repealing the full tax break, and top Republicans in each chamber also have voiced their support. Democrats have long backed the idea as well.

But it's not clear how quickly legislators will vote on repealing the tax break because they're divided over passing it as a stand-alone measure or as part of a comprehensive budget-balancing package. They're also still trying to get a handle on how much a stand-alone bill would raise, with a new estimate due next week.

Lona DuVall, president and CEO of the Finney County Economic Development Corp., said businesses seeking to relocate or expand in her area in southwest Kansas don't mention state taxes as a factor. She said they're worried about infrastructure and the education system and are put off by the state's budget woes.

"Without fail, that is one of the questions they ask us: 'When are you guys going to starting investing again in those things that made your state what it is?'" she told the House committee.

Brownback's counterproposal would reinstate income taxes on royalties and rents and increase annual filing fees for profit-making firms to raise about $147 million over two years as part of a larger package that also includes cigarette and liquor tax increases.

He acknowledged this week to reporters that Kansas' tax policies need "refining," but added, "We need to maintain the heart of it, which is about small business."

And in testimony, Nathan Bainbridge, vice president of a small manufacturing company in Newton, said continuing the tax break would allow it to hire a full-time engineer this year to develop new products, after several years of tax savings. Ending the break will delay the investment, he said.

"Meanwhile, our competition has more time to beat us to market and hire talent away," he said.

Critics of the targeted tax break argue that it's unfair to allow professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants to avoid paying personal income taxes while their employees still do. Brownback argues that his proposal to raise business filing fees addresses the issue by requiring each individual partner in a firm to pay a $200 fee annually, rather than having the business paying a single $40 fee.