Carolyn Hall responds. This is akin to Murkowski voting Yes for the Big Beautiful Bill and then immediately going on a PR campaign to say she didn't like the bill. It appears Hall is well on her way to becoming another spineless Alaskan politician who says one thing but votes another way. Her reasoning was that she instead supports HB 350 - but she neglects to say that HB 350 has languished in the Labor & Commerce committee for over 2 months with the most recent hearing ending in yet another delay and it will most likely not be passed this session.

Send her a letter here.

Opinion: I voted no on the corporate income tax bill. Here’s why that matters for Alaska.

By Carolyn Hall

I want to be clear: I believe Hilcorp, and any large, profitable S corporation operating in Alaska, should be paying taxes.

Like many Alaskans, I support closing the “S corp loophole.” But that fix needs to be fair, durable and actually work for Alaska long term.

That’s why I voted no on HB 194.

The Senate took an otherwise straightforward bill (intended to help Marathon’s oil supply meet Alaska’s gasoline needs) and abruptly amended it on the floor to include a major fiscal policy shift. The version of the bill that reached the House floor did not create a broad, consistent tax policy and was not reviewed in House committees. Instead, it evolved into a targeted approach aimed at a single company — Hilcorp.

We absolutely need to revisit oil taxes as part of diversifying our revenue base. But we need to do it with the same diligence we bring to other policies: to continue to attract investment in Alaska to grow revenues over the long term while ensuring our state receives its fair share of the value created from that investment, not just from the companies but also from the nonresident workers taking their earnings outside.

Alaska has been here before. Decades ago, when the state eliminated the personal income tax, it created the very gap we’re now trying to address. That decision wasn’t future-proofed and today we’re dealing with the consequences. We shouldn’t repeat that mistake by rushing through a fix.

If we’re serious about closing this gap, we need to do it the right way: by applying a clear, consistent tax structure to all large S corporations above a reasonable profit threshold, whether they’re here today or come to Alaska in the future.

That’s why I support a framework similar to House Bill 350. HB 350 is just a start and far from perfect — it certainly needs more vetting — but it treats businesses evenly, avoids singling out individual companies and creates policy that can stand the test of time.

The version of HB 194 that reached the House floor did not go through the level of public process and scrutiny that a major tax policy change requires. The bill changed significantly at the last minute in the Senate, becoming a vehicle for a sweeping tax shift. On the House floor, legislators were still asking basic questions that hadn’t been answered in a public setting. The bill asked us to pass legislation that none of our members vetted.

The stakes are bigger than one company. These decisions impact jobs, energy production and long-term projects that translate directly into economic stability and the cost of living for my district and for Alaska.

To reiterate, we can, and should, close the S corp gap. Unequivocally, Hilcorp should pay taxes in addition to the royalties they already pay. But we need to do it in a way that treats everyone equally and stands the test of time.

That’s why I voted no on HB 194. I’m committed to getting this right.

Rep. Carolyn Hall represents House District 16, West Anchorage, in the Alaska state House of Representatives and co-chairs the House Labor and Commerce Committee.