This bill amends R.I. Gen.
Laws § 44-1-6 to lengthen several timeframes tied to the three percent withholding on payments to nonresident contractors: the period that a payor must hold funds, and the Division of Taxation’s deadline to issue audit certificates, are increased from thirty to sixty days. The statutory mechanics for issuing certificates of no tax due or certificates showing taxes owed remain, as does the three percent withholding rate.
The bill also makes explicit that any person doing business with a nonresident contractor who fails to comply with the section is liable for the amount determined by the tax administrator and will be subject to the same collection remedies available against taxpayers. For project owners, prime contractors, procurement officers, and tax compliance teams, the change alters cash‑flow timing, increases documentation and audit exposure, and tightens the consequences for withholding errors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces multiple 30‑day deadlines in § 44‑1‑6 with 60‑day deadlines: payors must withhold 3% until 60 days after completion and request for audit, and the tax administrator has 60 days to issue a certificate of no tax due or a certificate showing taxes owed. If no certificate is issued within 60 days, the payor may release funds and be free from future tax claims; if a certificate shows taxes due within 60 days, the payor must remit the indicated amount (up to the withheld 3%). It also adds an explicit liability provision making noncompliant payors liable and subject to collection remedies.
Who It Affects
Nonresident contractors (those without a regular RI place of business), any party making payments to them (property owners, prime contractors, municipalities and other withholding agents), and the Rhode Island Division of Taxation which handles audit requests and issues certificates. Compliance officers, accounts payable teams, and contract managers in construction and public procurement will be directly affected.
Why It Matters
Doubling the review window increases the period funds are potentially held and shifts the pace of refunds or assessments, with direct cash‑flow implications for contractors and payors. The explicit liability language raises the stakes for withholding agents and will likely change contract language, escrow practices, and internal controls around construction payments and vendor screening.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 44-1-6 currently requires a withholding agent to retain 3% of the contract price when dealing with a nonresident contractor until the contractor requests an audit and the Division of Taxation issues a certificate addressing any state tax liability. The bill lengthens several tied deadlines from 30 days to 60 days.
Practically, that means a payor who withholds 3% must now maintain the hold for a longer statutory window after the contractor requests the audit, and the Division gets twice as much time to respond with a certificate.
Under the amended text the contractor must request an audit in writing and furnish a receipted copy of that request to the payor holding the funds. Once the Division receives the request, it has 60 days to provide one of three outcomes: a certificate of no tax due; a certificate showing sales/use or income tax withheld; or no certificate at all.
If the Division issues a certificate showing taxes due within that period, the payor must deposit with the Division the amount stated in the certificate, not to exceed the 3% withheld, and take a receipt—after which those deposited funds are protected from claims. If the Division furnishes neither certificate within 60 days, the payor may immediately release the withheld payment to the contractor and will be protected from later claims by the Division for those amounts.The bill also creates a clear enforcement hook: any person doing business with a nonresident contractor who fails to follow the withholding requirements is liable for the amount determined by the tax administrator and is subject to the same collection procedures the state uses for taxpayers.
The statutory definition of “nonresident contractor” remains tied to the absence of a regular place of business in Rhode Island and excludes temporary jobsite offices. The net effect is a longer statutory review period, a firm pathway for payors to clear their liability in defined circumstances, and a codified penalty exposure for noncompliance that will drive changes in accounts‑payable and contract practices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill keeps the withholding rate at 3% of the contract price but increases the statutory waiting and response periods from 30 days to 60 days in multiple subsections.
A nonresident contractor must request an audit in writing and provide a receipted copy to the payor; the Division then has 60 days to issue either a certificate of no tax due or a certificate showing taxes owed.
If the Division issues a certificate showing taxes due within 60 days, the payor must deposit the amount stated—up to the withheld 3%—with the Division and will receive a receipt that clears them from claims on those funds.
If the Division furnishes no certificate within 60 days of the request, the payor may immediately release the withheld payment to the contractor and is protected from subsequent claims by the Division for those funds.
The bill adds explicit statutory liability: any payor who fails to comply with the withholding rules is liable for the amount determined by the tax administrator and is subject to the same collection activities available against taxpayers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Extends initial withholding and audit-request timing from 30 to 60 days
Subsection (a) now requires a payor to withhold 3% of the contract price until sixty days (rather than thirty) after the contractor completes the work and requests an audit in writing. Practically, this lengthens the period during which funds remain escrowed or withheld, and it gives the Division more time to accept and process an audit request before a payor can act. For compliance teams, this emphasizes recordkeeping around the contractor’s written request and the receipted copy they must receive.
Changes Division response window and clarifies release if no certificate issued
Subsection (b) moves the Division’s deadline to issue a certificate from thirty to sixty days and restates that if no certificate arrives within that window the payor may release funds free from later tax claims. The timing shift both increases the Division’s administrative runway to complete reviews and creates a hard cutoff after which payors can clear their books; operationally that means accounts payable must track the Division’s receipt date to determine when the 60‑day countdown begins.
Requires deposit when Division certifies taxes due; deposited funds insulated from claims
Subsection (c) retains the mechanic that if the Division issues a certificate showing taxes due, the payor must deposit the stated amount—limited to the withheld 3%—with the Division and take a receipt. That deposited amount is then protected from claims by either the contractor or the Division arising from the project. This creates a safe‑harbor path for payors who receive a certificate showing liability but ensures the state can secure monies tied to potential tax liabilities.
Defines nonresident contractor and clarifies what constitutes a regular place of business
Subsection (d) retains the existing definition: a nonresident contractor is one that does not maintain a regular place of business in Rhode Island, with a detailed list of what counts (bona fide office, factory, warehouse) and an explicit exclusion for temporary jobsite offices. That definition determines who triggers the withholding regime and will be central to disputes over applicability on multi‑state firms and mobile crews.
Creates explicit liability and subjects noncompliant payors to taxpayer collection remedies
Subsection (e) now states directly that a person doing business with a nonresident contractor who fails to comply with the withholding provisions is liable for the amount determined by the tax administrator and will be subject to the same collection activities used against taxpayers. This both clarifies enforcement authority and raises the potential financial exposure—and administrative burden—on payors that misapply or ignore the withholding rules.
Effective date
The act becomes effective upon passage. That immediate effective date means affected parties should evaluate current contracting, escrow, and withholding procedures quickly to account for the extended timelines and the new explicit liability language.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Rhode Island Division of Taxation — Gains a longer statutory window (60 days) to conduct audits and issue certificates, reducing pressure to complete reviews within a shorter period and potentially improving collection outcomes.
- Payors who receive no certificate within 60 days — Obtain statutory protection to release withheld funds and are insulated from future claims for the released amounts, reducing long‑term uncertainty for those specific transactions.
- Payors who receive a certificate showing taxes due and deposit the certified amount — Can clear their exposure by depositing the certified sum and receiving a receipt that shields them from later claims on those funds.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonresident contractors — Face a longer potential delay in receiving withheld funds, which can worsen cash‑flow issues for subcontractors and smaller firms without an RI business presence.
- Withholding agents and payors (property owners, prime contractors, municipalities) — Bear increased compliance obligations, recordkeeping (tracking receipted audit requests and Division receipt dates), and potential liability exposure if they fail to follow the statute precisely.
- Division of Taxation — While gaining more time, the Division will face a larger administrative docket and must track deadlines to avoid creating systemic delays that trigger releases of withheld funds; this could require procedural changes or more resources for timely processing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting state tax revenue by giving the tax administrator more time to assess liabilities versus minimizing harm to contractors and payors by limiting how long funds can be withheld and how harshly withholding errors are penalized; the bill solves timing pressure for the agency but increases cash‑flow friction and enforcement risk for the private parties who fund construction projects.
The bill balances two competing administrative goals but leaves implementation questions that will matter in practice. Extending the response window to 60 days eases time pressure on the Division of Taxation but also prolongs the period during which contractors cannot access withheld funds, exacerbating cash‑flow friction in industries (like construction) that already operate on thin margins.
The statute’s protection for payors when the Division misses the 60‑day window reduces long‑term risk for withholding agents but creates a hard line: a missed administrative deadline can immediately transfer the financial burden back to the taxpayer community via earlier releases. That dynamic may encourage payors to press the Division for faster responses but could also produce adversarial interactions and litigation about when the Division actually received a contractor’s request.
The new explicit liability provision broadens enforcement clarity but raises practical ambiguity about scope. The bill makes a payor ‘‘liable for the amount determined by the tax administrator’’ and subject to taxpayer collection activities, yet it does not define whether good‑faith mistakes, timing discrepancies, or ambiguous contractor residency facts merit mitigation.
Operationally, entities will need to improve documentation (time‑stamped receipted requests, escrow accounting, clear contract clauses) to avoid exposure. The statute assumes a reliable mechanism for receipting and for proving the Division’s receipt date; absent standardized forms or electronic intake rules, disputes over countdown start dates and sufficiency of notices are likely.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.