BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 16, 2005

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
                                 Johan Klehs, Chair

                      AB 115 (Klehs) - As Amended:  May 2, 2005
           
           Majority vote.  Tax Levy.  Fiscal Committee.

           SUBJECT  :  Personal income and corporation taxes:  Conformity

           SUMMARY  :  Generally conforms California personal income and  
          corporation tax laws to federal income tax laws as set forth in  
          the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as of January 1, 2005, with  
          limited exceptions.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Conforms to many provisions of the numerous federal tax bills  
            that have been enacted since the last conformity date, as well  
            as maintaining separate tax laws in selected areas.   
            Specifically adopts:

             a)   Exception to passive activity loss rules for real estate  
               professionals.

             b)   Expansion of the exclusion from income for qualified  
               foster care payments.

             c)   Creation of the health savings accounts (HSAa).  Also  
               made retroactive to taxable year 2004 to permit transfers  
               of remaining balances from Archer Medical Savings Accounts  
               (Archer MSAs) to HSAs without being taxed as a disqualified  
               distribution.

          2)Adopts the uniform definition of "child", extension of  
            provisions regarding Archer MSAs, and technical amendments  
            related to prior tax legislation from the Working Families Tax  
            relief Act of 2004 (WFTRA), also known as Public Law 108-311.

          3)Conforms to numerous provisions of the American Jobs Creation  
            Act of 2004 (AJCA of 2004), also known as Public Law 108-357  
            adopted.  Specifically includes:

             a)    Miscellaneous technical and administrative provisions  
               dealing with S corporations and real estate investment  
               trusts.








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  2


             b)   Allowance of certain expenses related to rural letter  
               carriers without limitation.

             c)   Transfers of suspended losses incident to divorce.

             d)   Special rules for livestock sold on account of  
               weather-related conditions.

             e)   Expensing of reforestation expenditures.

             f)   Modification of class life (for depreciation purposes)  
               of certain track facilities.

             g)   Changes related to charitable deductions including  
               limitation of the amount of the deduction for contributions  
               of motor vehicles, boats and airplanes to the amount the  
               charity receives at a subsequent sale; increased reporting  
               requirements for noncash charitable contributions; and  
               revised rules for treatment of contributions of patents and  
               similar property.

             h)   Provisions related to reportable transactions and tax  
               shelters.

             i)   Limitation of employer deductions for certain  
               entertainment expenses.

          4)Conforms via stand alone legislation to AJCA of 2004  
            provisions allowing current expense of capital costs related  
            to compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  
            sulfur regulations and tax credit for the production of  
            ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.

          5)Does not conform to several provisions of AJCA of 2004,  
            primarily for reasons of cost.  The more notable of the  
            nonconformity provisions are as follows:

             a)   Various depreciation-related provisions including:   
               Two-year extension of increased expensing for small  
               businesses (not in conformity with expiring provisions);  
               reduced recovery period for depreciation of certain  
               leasehold improvements and restaurant property;  
               modification of application of income forecast method;  
               modification of depreciation rules for motion picture and  








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  3

               television productions, and aircraft.

             b)   Various provisions related to foreign corporations,  
               foreign tax credits, etc.

             c)   Deductions for dividends repatriated to the United  
               States (U.S.) from foreign subsidiaries.

           EXISTING LAW  bases much of its tax laws on the federal IRC.   
          California does not automatically conform to new federal  
          legislation.  Rather, California may conform to specific  
          enactments at the federal level or may conform to the IRC as of  
          a specified date.  The latest IRC to which California has  
          conformed is that in effect as of January 1, 2001.  Since the  
          last "date change" legislation, California has adopted several  
          provisions of federal legislation, but there remain many federal  
          tax provisions representing selected areas of nonconformity, as  
          explicitly stated in the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) prepared the  
          following estimate of the revenue impacts in their specific  
          fiscal year (FY) of the primary conformity pieces of this bill:

           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                          |   REVENUE IMPACT     |
          |                PROVISION                 |     ($ MILLIONS)     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |                                          |  FY   |  FY  |  FY  |
          |                                          |2005-06|2006-0|2007-0|
          |                                          |       |  7   |  8   |
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Exception to passive activity loss rules  |  -$35 |      |      |
          |for real estate professionals             |       |-$25  |-$25  |
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Expansion of exclusion from income for    |   -$  |  -$  |  -$  |
          |qualified foster care payments            |4      |3     |3     |
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Health Savings Accounts-applicable to     |       |      |      |
          |taxable years beginning after December    | -$29  |      | -$23 |
          |31,  2003, with amended returns allowed   |       |-$18  |      |
          |for taxable year 2004                     |       |      |      |
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Uniform definition of child and other     | -$10  | -$ 7 |  -$  |
          |provisions of WFTRA                       |       |      |7     |








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  4

          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Miscellaneous provisions of AJCA adopted  |       |      |      |
          |by date-change conformity                 |+$30.4 |+$39.1|+$37.2|
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |Stand-alone conformity to provisions      |       |      |      |
          |dealing with EPA sulfur regulations and   | -$ .4 |      |  -$  |
          |tax credit for the production of          |       |-$1.1 |1.2   |
          |ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel              |       |      |      |
          |------------------------------------------+-------+------+------|
          |TOTAL                                     | -$48  |      | -$22 |
          |                                          |       |-$15  |      |
           ---------------------------------------------------------------- 

           Proposition 98 Fiscal Effect  :  Committee staff estimate the  
          revenue loss to K-14 school funding will be $26 million in FY  
          2005-06, $8 million in FY 2006-07, and $12 million in FY  
          2007-08.

           COMMENTS  :   

          1)There have been no fewer than five federal tax bills during  
            the period since California last conformed its tax laws to the  
            IRC as of January 1, 2005.  California has adopted some of the  
            tax law changes in a piece-meal fashion, but has not  
            considered a general conformity measure for several years.   
            Federal tax legislation enacted in late 2004 was so  
            substantial as to warrant serious consideration of a "date  
            change" conformity measure.  The author proffers this "date  
            change" conformity measure so that California will be one step  
            closer to federal tax law, which should enhance compliance  
            with the California tax laws.

          2)Committee staff note that nonconformity can lead to a myriad  
            of problems for California taxpayers.  Specifically:

             a)   The failure to conform to federal law in some areas but  
               not in other related areas can be confusing and might lead  
               to improper tax reporting to California.  An example of  
               this situation is California's failure to conform to the  
               exception to passive loss rules for real estate  
               professionals despite conformity with the remaining passive  
               activity loss rules.
              
             b)   Other areas should be adopted so that taxpayers who  
               follow federal laws will not automatically violate of  








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  5

               California tax laws.  An example of this situation is the  
               ability to roll-over balances in an Archer MSA to the new  
               HSAs without triggering a tax liability at the federal  
               level.  However, for California tax purposes, that  
               roll-over would constitute a disqualified distribution from  
               the Archer MSA and the taxpayer would be subject to tax and  
               penalties for the transfer that is wholly approved for  
               federal tax purposes.

             c)   Another area involves failure to conform to definitions.  
                For example, the federal tax law adopted a uniform  
               definition of "child" for purposes of all provisions that  
               provide tax benefits with respect to children.  These  
               provisions include head of household filing status,  
               dependent care credit, child care credits, earned income  
               credit, and the dependency exemption.  The statutes used  
               slightly differing definitions or separate criteria, which  
               caused some persons be classified as a child for some tax  
               purposes but not for others.  California also has varying  
               definitions for "child" and California taxpayers would  
               benefit from consistent definitions as well.

          3)Several bills have been introduced in this legislative session  
            that provide specific levels of conformity of California tax  
            laws to Federal legislation that passed during 2004.  Only  
            this bill proposes a comprehensive adoption of Federal  
            legislation, accomplished by way of conforming to the IRC as  
            of January 1, 2005, with specific exceptions as noted.  AB 398  
            (Villines) conforms to the enhanced depreciation deductions.   
            AB 661 (Plescia) and SB 173 (Maldonado) conform to the federal  
            provisions for health savings accounts.  AB 666 (Bermudez)  
            conforms to the federal deduction for dividends repatriated to  
            the U.S. from foreign subsidiaries.  AB 810 (Parra) conforms  
            to the federal provisions allowing enhanced expensing and  
            credits related to production of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.  
             All of these bills are pending before the Revenue and  
            Taxation Committees of their respective houses of origin.

          4)FTB staff note that the provisions dealing with low-sulfur  
            diesel fuel target the tax benefit to activities within  
            California.  A recent federal Court of Appeals decision found  
            that an investment credit offered by the State of Ohio was  
            unconstitutional because it gave preferential tax treatment to  
            companies that located or expanded in Ohio over taxpayer  
            locating in a different state.  That decision, Cuno v.  








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page  6

            DaimlerChrysler (2004), 386 F. 2d 738, was appealed to the  
            U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the  
            case for review.  Although a decision has not yet been issued,  
            FTB staff note that targeted tax incentives conditioned on  
            activities occurring in California may be subject to  
            constitutional challenge.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          California ACORN

           Opposition 
           
          None in file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Kimberly Bott / REV. & TAX. / (916)  
          319-2098