The state’s controversial film tax credit program will likely be a key point of contention as the House and Senate lawmakers debate a proposed $47.6 billion budget.
On Wednesday, the Senate moved into direct conflict with the House by rejecting, without debate, a number of proposals that would have brought the chambers closer together.
After a government report found earlier this year that the tax break, which costs the state between $56 million and $80 million per year, was not an efficient use of funds, some state senators hoped to reexamine it. But the program has unanimous support from the House, notably from Speaker Ronald Mariano, and proponents say those financial analyses don’t capture the scope of the tax break’s benefits.
Without any action, the program will expire on Jan. 1, 2023. The Senate proposal would push that date back to 2027, and limit the tax break in several other ways. The House voted to continue the program indefinitely.
The program currently includes a 25 percent payroll credit for projects that spend more than $50,000 in Massachusetts. Productions that spend more than half of their total budget in Massachusetts — or film at least half of the time in the state— are also eligible for a 25 percent production credit and a sales tax exemption.
The Senate plan would increase the threshold to qualify for the credit by requiring productions to spend 75 percent of their budget or 75 percent of their filming days in Massachusetts.
It also would cap salaries covered by the credit at $1 million, and, in a major change, bar production companies from selling credits to other entities, including insurance companies, corporations, or even individuals, according to state Senator Michael J. Rodrigues, the chamber’s budget chairman.
State Senator Bruce Tarr, the Republican minority leader, had filed a number of amendments to continue the program without change, as the House favors. But the Senate rejected those proposals all at once without debate. Proposals by Democrats to amend the Senate plan on the tax break were also withdrawn.
The film tax credit is just one piece of the budget that lawmakers will hash out in the coming weeks. But it has drawn the attention of union workers in the film industry, who rallied outside the State House on Tuesday to keeping the film tax credit in place indefinitely.
Rebecca Greene, a Medford artist who attended the event, said working as a set dresser and decorator on films in Massachusetts has allowed her to earn a living while focusing on her creative passions. At 37, she said she has finally saved up enough money to buy a house, a goal she wasn’t sure she could ever achieve in her field.
Greene, who is a member of IATSE Local 481, a union representing behind-the-scenes workers in live theater, film, and television productions, said it’s impossible to quantify the value of major films and series hiring locally, which helps support and grow a community of artists in the area.
“It’s an absolute blessing in my life. I can’t stress that enough,” she said of the film jobs made possible by the tax break. Now, films and series “are branching out and bringing people in. If the film tax incentive stays, you’re going to see that, I have no doubt,” she said.
Andrea Lyman, president of the New England Local chapter of SAG-AFTRA, the screen actors guild, said state support for the film industry has meant she can have a career in her native Massachusetts, near her aging mother, instead of having to live in New York or California.
Because “we’ve had a reliable film tax credit, television series have been coming here. And that means a lot of work for a lot of people,” she said.
Critics, including Rodrigues, have questioned why Massachusetts is “supplementing the salaries of Hollywood stars.” In 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, the credit is estimated to have generated $25.1 million in wages for residents, but $35.5 million in wages for millionaires who live out of state.
The Senate also took action this week on another suite of tax breaks, passing an amendment by state Senator Adam Hinds, a Pittsfield Democrat, that could save the state up to $2.1 million annually.
The three breaks, pertaining to patent sales, medical device user fees, and harbor maintenance, were identified in the government report this year as poor investments.
It’s important for policymakers to regularly re-evaluate tax breaks, Hinds said.
“We need to be more deliberate about these expenditures that ultimately, when used, are taking away from our other agreed investments and priorities,” Hinds said. “Plenty are good and important and yet there are others that make you scratch your head.”
Material from the State House News Service was used in this report.
Emma Platoff can be reached at emma.platoff@globe.com. Follow her @emmaplatoff.