[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E949-E950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAX PARITY FOR NON-RESIDENT PROFESSIONAL 
                          ATHLETES ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 25, 2011

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia 
Tax Parity for Non-Resident Professional Athletes Act of 2011, at the 
request of the D.C. Council, which unanimously passed a Sense of the 
Council resolution, introduced by D.C. Council members Jack Evans and 
Harry Thomas, Jr., calling on me to introduce the bill in Congress. The 
bill would amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to allow the 
District to impose a tax on income earned in the District by 
nonresident professional athletes, just as a number of states currently 
do. For example, California received $102 million in tax revenue from 
income earned by non-resident athletes in 2006-2007. Tennessee raised 
$1.1 million in tax revenue from visiting athletes, which was used for 
municipal parks and recreation projects. The bill does not tax the 
income of citizens of neighboring states. It is those states, not 
visiting athletes, that Congress intended to protect with the Home Rule 
Act provision that prohibits D.C. from taxing non-resident income.
  The District continues to be responsible for providing state-like 
services to D.C. residents,

[[Page E950]]

in addition to providing services to non-residents and the federal 
government, despite congressionally imposed restrictions on the 
District's revenue-raising capacity. The prohibition on taxing non-
resident income should not be stretched to cover visiting athletes, a 
group not intended to be covered by the prohibition in the Home Rule 
Act. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

                          ____________________