BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page A
          Date of Hearing:  April 25, 2011

                                Henry T. Perea, Chair

                AB 155 (Charles Calderon) - As Amended:  March 3, 2011

                                      VOTE ONLY  

           Majority vote.  Fiscal committee. 
          SUBJECT  :  Use tax:  retailer engaged in business 

           SUMMARY  :  Expands the statutory definition of a "retailer 
          engaged in business in this state" to improve administration of 
          the state's use tax.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Imposes a use tax collection obligation on any retailer that 
            is a member of a commonly controlled group, as defined, and is 
            a member of a combined reporting group, as defined, that 
            includes another member of the retailer's commonly controlled 
            group that performs services in this state in connection with 
            tangible personal property (TPP) to be sold by the retailer.  
            Qualifying services include, without limitation, the design 
            and development of TPP sold by the retailer, or the 
            solicitation of sales of TPP on the retailer's behalf. 

          2)Deletes the statutory provisions that would, upon the 
            enactment of authorizing federal legislation, impose a use tax 
            collection obligation on any retailer soliciting orders for 
            TPP by mail if the solicitations are substantial and recurring 
            and if other specified conditions are met.  


          1)Authorizes Congress, under the commerce clause of the United 
            States (U.S.) Constitution, to regulate commerce with foreign 
            nations, and among the several states.  The U.S. Supreme Court 
            has held that the "negative" or "dormant" commerce clause also 
            prohibits states from enacting laws that unduly burden or 
            discriminate against interstate commerce. 

          2)Provides per federal case law that, under the dormant commerce 
            clause, a retailer must have a "physical presence" in a state 
            before that state can require the retailer to collect its use 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page B

           EXISTING STATE LAW  :

          1)Imposes a sales tax on retailers for the privilege of selling 
            TPP, absent a specific exemption.  The tax is based upon the 
            retailer's gross receipts from TPP sales in this state.  

          2)Imposes a complementary use tax on the storage, use, or other 
            consumption in this state of TPP purchased from any retailer.  
            The use tax is imposed on the purchaser, and unless the 
            purchaser pays the use tax to a retailer registered to collect 
            the California use tax, the purchaser remains liable for the 
            tax, unless the use is exempted.  The use tax is set at the 
            same rate as the state's sales tax and must be remitted to the 
            State Board of Equalization (BOE).  

          3)Specifies those retailers that are considered to be engaged in 
            business in this state and that, as such, are required to 
            collect use tax on sales of TPP to California consumers.  
            Specifically, the term "retailer engaged in business in this 
            state" includes any retailer who:

             a)   Maintains, occupies, or uses, permanently or 
               temporarily, directly or indirectly, or through a 
               subsidiary, or agent, by whatever name called, an office, 
               place of distribution, sales or sample room or place, 
               warehouse or storage place, or other place of business;

             b)   Has any representative, agent, salesperson, canvasser, 
               independent contractor, or solicitor operating in this 
               state under the authority of the retailer or its subsidiary 
               for the purpose of selling, delivering, installing, 
               assembling, or the taking of orders for any TPP; or,

             c)   Derives rentals from a lease of TPP situated in this 

          4)Defines a "commonly controlled group" as any of the following:

             a)   A parent corporation and any one or more corporations or 
               chains of corporations, connected through stock ownership 
               (or constructive ownership) with the parent, as specified;

             b)   Any two or more corporations, if stock representing more 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page C
               than 50% of the corporations' voting power is owned by the 
               same person;

             c)   Any two or more corporations that constitute stapled 
               entities, as defined; or,

             d)   Any two or more corporations, all of whose stock 
               representing more than 50% of the corporations' voting 
               power is cumulatively owned by, or for the benefit of, 
               members of the same family.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  This bill would impose a use tax collection 
          obligation on LLC (the on-line retailer) and other 
          similarly organized remote vendors.  Looking only at 
          LLC's sales to California consumers, BOE estimates that this 
          bill would increase state and local revenues by $83 million 
          annually.  This figure does not include revenues associated with 
          other as yet unidentified retailers that could be impacted by 
          this bill.           

          COMMENTS  :   

          1)The author has provided the following statement in support of 
            this bill:

               Each year, California loses over $1.145 billion in revenues 
               as a result of unreported use taxes.  A large percentage of 
               this use tax gap is attributable to out-of-state Internet 
               sales.  More importantly, the lack of use tax collection 
               has provided a competitive advantage to many out-of-state 
               companies, allowing them to undercut their in-state 
               competitors.  AB 155 would help to level the playing field 
               by imposing a use tax collection obligation on retailers 
               that use in-state sister companies to help develop or sell 
               their goods.  By taking this important step, AB 155 will 
               promote the fair and effective administration of 
               California's Sales and Use Tax Law.  

          2)Proponents state, "AB 155] is a pragmatic and thoughtful 
            approach that strikes the appropriate balance between the 
            state's need to close the use tax gap while also protecting 
            California's burgeoning high tech industry from any adverse 
            impacts."  Proponents also state,  "We believe that AB 155], 
            though novel, is also fair, practicable and enforceable by 
            focusing on the corporate family relationship of a parent and 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page D
            subsidiary working in concert with one another, rather than 
            the mere contractual relationship that exists between an 
            affiliate marketer and the company it advertises on the behalf 

          3)Opponents state, "W]e oppose AB 155 because the California 
            courts have already rejected "control group nexus" as a basis 
            to require out of state retailers to collect use tax.  
            Moreover, even if AB 155 could be enforced, such a requirement 
            would not produce additional revenue for California as related 
            companies can easily be relocated, or the services they 
            provide can easily be obtained elsewhere."  Opponents also 
            state, "Instead of AB 155, we encourage the Legislature to 
            consider expanding California's existing, lawful and 
            successful program to collect use tax from the purchasers who 
            are responsible for payment."     

          4)BOE has provided the following comments in its staff analysis 
            of this bill:

              a)   This Bill would impose a use tax collection obligation 
               on retailers such as LLC, the on-line retailer 
               and others  .  "This bill would impose a use tax collection 
               obligation on out-of-state retailers who have certain 
               sister companies in California that perform services in 
               cooperation with the out-of-state retailer, as described.  
      LLC (the on-line retailer), for example, and any 
               other similarly organized out-of-state retailer, would fit 
               within this provision. Inc. is a Seattle-based 
               corporation.  The on-line retailer, LLC, is a 
               member of Inc.'s commonly controlled group and a 
               member of Inc.'s combined reporting group under 
               California's Corporation Tax Law. LLC's 
               commonly controlled group has other California-based 
               members that perform various services in this state in 
               connection with items sold by LLC.  For example, 
      is a California-based wholly-owned subsidiary of 
     , Inc. and provides product and visual search 
               technologies for items displayed on LLC's 
               website.  Another California wholly-owned subsidiary, Lab 
               126, performs design and development activities associated 
               with Amazon's Kindle and other electronic reading devices.  
               This change to Section 6203 would specify that such 
               described out-of-state retailers are engaged in business in 
               California, based on the activities of their other members 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page E
               of their commonly controlled group, and are required to 
               collect California use tax on their taxable sales to 
               California consumers.  This specific form of nexus has not 
               been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does raise 
               a question regarding whether it would be consistent with 
               the "physical presence" test affirmed in Quill.  
               Ultimately, the physical presence requirement for nexus may 
               have to be reexamined by the court to reflect today's 

          5)Committee Staff Comments:

              a)   California's Use Tax  :  Since 1933, the state has imposed 
               a sales tax on California retailers for the privilege of 
               selling TPP, absent a specific exemption.  The tax is based 
               upon the retailer's gross receipts from TPP sales in this 
               state.  In 1935, California adopted a complementary "use 
               tax" on the storage, use, or other consumption of TPP 
               purchased out-of-state and brought into California.  The 
               use tax was designed to protect California merchants who 
               would otherwise be at a competitive disadvantage when 
               out-of-state retailers sell to California customers without 
               charging tax.

               Unlike the sales tax, the use tax is imposed on the 
               purchaser and not the retailer.  Unless the purchaser pays 
               the use tax to an out-of-state retailer registered to 
               collect California's use tax, the purchaser remains liable 
               for the tax.  The use tax is set at the same rate as the 
               state's sales tax and must be remitted to the BOE.  
              b)   Impediments to Collection  :  The most practical way for a 
               state to enforce its use tax is to have retailers collect 
               the tax at the time of sale.  However, there is 
               considerable ambiguity surrounding the circumstances under 
               which a state may legally compel an out-of-state retailer 
               to collect use tax on its behalf.  This ambiguity has its 
               origins in the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
               which charges Congress with regulating commerce among the 
               several states.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, by 
               implication, the commerce clause also prohibits states from 
               enacting laws that unduly burden interstate commerce.    

               In  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota  (1992), 504 U.S. 298, the 
               U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide the 


                                                                 AB 155
                                                                  Page F
               constitutionality of a North Dakota law that imposed a use 
               tax collection obligation on out-of-state retailers that 
               advertised in the state three or more times in a single 
               year.  The Court invalidated the law, holding that, under 
               the negative Commerce Clause, a retailer must have a 
               "physical presence" in a state before that state can 
               require the retailer to collect its use tax.  

               The "physical presence" test affirmed in  Quill  has 
               complicated California's efforts to collect its use tax.  
               For example, when a California consumer purchases a coat 
               from an out-of-state retailer through its catalog or online 
               store, the consumer's use of the coat in California 
               triggers a use tax liability.  If the out-of-state retailer 
               lacks a "physical presence" in California, however, 
               California is constitutionally prohibited from requiring 
               the retailer to collect the tax.  If the consumer fails to 
               remit the tax, the purchase completely escapes taxation.  
               It is estimated that this gap in California's sales and use 
               tax (SUT) system costs the state over $1.145 billion in 
               revenues each year.<1>

             c)   Proposals for Increasing Use Tax Compliance  :  Other 
               states have employed a host of different methods for 
               closing the use tax gap.  Most notable are the "Amazon" 
               approach first adopted by New York, and the approach taken 
               more recently by the State of Colorado.

                i)     The "Amazon" Approach  :  Revenue and Taxation Code 
                 (R&TC) Section 6203 specifies those retailers considered 
                 to be engaged in business in this state - in other words, 
                 it lists those retailers that are considered to have a 
                 "physical presence" sufficient to impose a use tax 
                 collection obligation.  AB 153 (Skinner), of the current 
                 Legislative Session, would add to this statutory list 
                 certain "out-of-state" retailers that use California 
                 residents, often referred to as "affiliates," to promote 
                 business.  AB 153 is modeled after the so-called "Amazon" 
                 legislation passed in New York.  New York, and other 
                 states that have enacted similar bills, argue that if a 
                 remote vendor (like Amazon) uses an affiliate marketing 
                 program, the vendor's in-state activities satisfy  Quill  's 

          <1> This total represents $795 million in use taxes uncollected 
          from California consumers and $350 million in use taxes 
          uncollected from businesses.  


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page G
                 physical presence requirements and thus create SUT nexus 
                 for the vendor.  Specifically, this argument is based on 
                 the theory of "attributional" nexus, as established in 
                  Scripto, Inc. v. Carson  (1960), 362 U.S. 207 and  Tyler 
                 Pipe Indus. v. Washington State Dep't of Revenue  (1987), 
                 483 U.S. 232, which hold that if a retailer has in-state 
                 agents that sell on the retailer's behalf, the in-state 
                 agents may establish nexus on behalf of the out-of-state 

                 Proponents of the Amazon approach note that many 
                 out-of-state retailers use California residents to drive 
                 business, and take full advantage of California's 
                 consumer base, but refuse to collect California's use 
                 tax. <2>   This, in turn, places these companies at a 
                 competitive advantage vis--vis California-based 
                 businesses, which must collect and remit sales tax.

                 Opponents of the Amazon approach argue that such 
                 legislation would cause out-of-state retailers to 
                 terminate their affiliate relationships with California 
                 residents.  This, they argue, would place the jobs of 
                 California affiliates at risk in an already troubled 
                 economic climate.  In addition, critics argue that 
                 affiliates operate far differently from the sales force 
                 "actively engaged" on behalf of Scripto, Inc.  
                 Specifically, they note that the work of most affiliates 
                 is passive and that affiliates do not call on customers 
                 or directly solicit orders.
                  It should be noted that out-of-state retailers have 
                 followed through on their threats to terminate affiliate 
                 contracts in states that have adopted Amazon legislation. 
                  After New York's enactment of its "Amazon" law, both 
                 North Carolina and Rhode Island followed suit.  As a 
                 result, online giant cancelled its 
                 affiliate program in all three states, while 
          <2> Amazon collects tax in only five states: Washington, North 
          Dakota, Kentucky, Kansas, and New York.  Indeed, it would seem 
          that tax avoidance has been a longstanding priority for Amazon, 
          Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, who originally considered citing his 
          company on an Indian reservation near San Francisco for tax 
          avoidance purposes.  ("Sorry, Shoppers, but Why Can't Amazon 
          Collect More Tax?," Randall Stross, New York Times, December 26, 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page H
                 cancelled its affiliate programs in both North Carolina 
                 and Rhode Island.

                ii)    The "Colorado" Approach  :  In its effort to increase 
                 use tax collections, the State of Colorado has taken a 
                 different path from the one forged by New York.  On 
                 February 24, 2010, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed 
                 into law HB 1193, which imposes a set of notice and 
                 reporting requirements on retailers that do not collect 
                 the state's use tax.  Specifically, under HB 1193, 
                 non-collecting retailers must:

                  (1)       Notify consumers that SUT is due on certain 
                    purchases and that, under state law, the consumer must 
                    file a SUT return.  Absent reasonable cause, failure 
                    to provide this notice will result in a penalty of $5 
                    for each failure;

                  (2)       Send consumers an annual notice showing the 
                    total amount of purchases made in the prior calendar 
                    year.  In addition, the notice must inform consumers 
                    of their obligation to file appropriate SUT returns.  
                    The notice must be sent separately by first class mail 
                    with the marking, "Important Tax Document Enclosed."  
                    Absent reasonable cause, failure to provide this 
                    notice will result in a penalty of $10 for each 
                    failure; and,

                  (3)       File an annual statement for each consumer 
                    with the state's Department of Revenue showing the 
                    total amount paid for purchases during the preceding 
                    calendar year.  Absent reasonable cause, failure to 
                    file this annual statement will result in a penalty of 
                    $10 for each consumer that should have been included 
                    in the statement.  

                 Critics of the Colorado approach argue that the law's 
                 reporting regime is tantamount to requiring use tax 
                 collection, because it includes features like audits and 
                 penalties for failure to comply.  In addition, critics 
                 state, "Colorado's information reporting requirement is 
                 excessive - and perhaps results in a reporting regime 
                 that is ironically more burdensome than the tax 
                 collection obligation struck down in Quill."  (Kranz, 
                 Smith, and Freeman, Colorado's End Run: Clever, Coercive, 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page I
                 and Unconstitutional, Tax Analysts, April 5, 2010.)

                 Despite the fact that HB 1193 does not attribute nexus 
                 based on the activity of in-state affiliates, 
                 terminated its Colorado affiliates on March 8, 2010.  It 
                 is unclear whether this decision was motivated by a 
                 desire to avoid tax collection or was simply intended as 
                 a warning to other states considering similar 

                 HB 1193's constitutionality was recently called into 
                 question by the U.S.  District Court for the District of 
                 Colorado.  On January 26, 2011, Judge Robert E. Blackburn 
                 issued a preliminary injunction barring Colorado's 
                 enforcement of the law.  Specifically, Judge Blackburn 
                 found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a substantial 
                 likelihood that HB 1193 violates the commerce clause by 
                 imposing a burden on interstate commerce that is not 
                 imposed on in-state commerce.  Judge Blackburn also 
                 concluded that the law likely violates the commerce 
                 clause by imposing an undue burden on interstate 

              d)   What Would this Bill Do?  :  This bill would establish a 
               new and rather novel approach for reducing the use tax gap. 
                Specifically, it would impose a use tax collection 
               obligation on "out-of-state" retailers with in-state sister 
               companies that provide services connected to the retailer's 
               sales of TPP.  Qualifying services would include the design 
               and development of TPP sold by the retailer, or the 
               solicitation of TPP sales on the retailer's behalf. 

              e)   What Impact, If Any, Would this Bill Have on California 
               Affiliates?  :  Unlike the more traditional "Amazon" approach 
               noted above, this bill would not attribute nexus to remote 
               vendors based on the activity of in-state affiliates.  
               Indeed, this bill makes absolutely no reference to 
               affiliates and would instead attribute nexus based on the 
               activities of in-state sister companies.  Nevertheless, in 
               a February 24, 2011 letter to BOE Member George Runner, 
               Amazon stated that it will terminate its relationships with 
               well over 10,000 affiliates if California adopts any of the 
               use tax collection proposals currently pending in the 
               Legislature, including AB 155.  


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page J
              f)   The Legal Landscape  :  Some critics have suggested that 
               the approach taken by AB 155 is prohibited by the Court of 
               Appeal's decision in  Current, Inc. v. State Board of 
               Equalization  (1994), 24 Cal.App.4th 382.  As such, a more 
               detailed examination of this case is warranted.   

                Current, Inc. (Current) was an out-of-state mail order 
               company based in Colorado.  In 1987, Current was acquired 
               by Deluxe Corporation (Deluxe), which had "considerable 
                                                                                commercial contacts within California."   Id  . at 385.  
               Thereafter, BOE asserted that Current had an obligation to 
               collect California's use tax under R&TC Section 6203(g).  
               Id  .  At the time, subdivision (g) imposed a collection duty 
               on "a]ny retailer owned or controlled by the same 
               interests which sic] own or control any retailer engaged 
               in business in the same or similar line of business in this 
               state."   Id  .  

                On review, the Court of Appeal held that Current's physical 
               nexus with the State of California was insufficient to 
               justify the imposition of a use tax collection duty.    Id  . 
               at 391.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that 
               neither Current nor Deluxe was the alter ego or agent of 
               the other for any purpose.   Id  . at 388.  Neither solicited 
               orders for the products of the other.   Id  .  Moreover, each 
               company had its own trade name, goodwill, marketing 
               practices and customer lists and each marketed its products 
               independently of the other.  Id  .  Finally, the Court noted 
               that both companies were organized and operated as separate 
               and distinct corporate entities.  Id. 

               Thus, the facts presented in  Current  are substantially 
               different from those contemplated by this bill.   Current  
               stands for the proposition that common corporate ownership 
               is, by itself, an insufficient basis upon which to impose a 
               use tax collection duty.  AB 155, however, does not 
               disregard the distinct legal status of affiliated 
               corporations.  Instead, it asserts nexus in cases where an 
               affiliated corporation with California presence is 
               designing and developing TPP to be sold by the retailer, or 
               soliciting sales of TPP on the retailer's behalf.  Such 
               affiliated companies would appear to be actively engaged in 
               both promoting and facilitating the remote vendor's sales 
               of TPP.  


                                                                 AB 155
                                                                  Page K
             g)   Recent Legislative Efforts Focused on Increasing Use Tax 
               Collections  :  In recent years, California has taken other 
               steps to increase use tax compliance.  Chief among these 
               efforts are the mandatory use tax registration program and 
               the permanent inclusion of a use tax line on the state's 
               income tax returns.  Each is discussed briefly below:
               i)     Mandatory Use Tax Registration for Service 
                 Enterprises  :  In 2009, California enacted R&TC Section 
                 6225 seeking to increase use tax compliance among 
                 California businesses that purchase TPP from 
                 out-of-state.  Specifically, Section 6225 requires 
                 "qualified purchasers" to register with BOE for annual 
                 use tax reporting.  A qualified purchaser is defined as a 
                 person that:
                   (1)       Receives at least $100,000 in gross receipts 
                    from business operations per calendar year;
                   (2)       Is not required to hold a seller's permit or 
                    certificate of registration for use tax;
                   (3)       Does not hold a use tax direct payment permit; 
                   (4)       Is not otherwise registered with BOE to report 
                    use tax.  

                  The BOE estimates that this mandatory registration 
                 program will generate roughly $58.5 million in fiscal 
                 year (FY) 2010-11 from a total of 556,012 registered 

                ii)    Permanent Inclusion of a Use Tax Line on Income Tax 
                 Returns  :  In 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 858 
                 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 721, 
                 into law as part of the FY 2010-11 Budget Agreement.  
                 Among other things, SB 858 provided for the permanent 
                 inclusion of a use tax line on the state's income tax 
                 returns, thereby allowing income tax filers to fill-in 
                 the amount of use tax due on their returns.  BOE staff 
                 estimated that this provision would increase General Fund 
                 collections by roughly $9.2 million annually.

              h)   What is the Cost of Maintaining the Status Quo?  :  In 


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page L
               August 2010, Professor Richard A. Parker of San Diego State 
               University issued a report reviewing the impact of 
               California's current use tax collection laws on economic 
               activity, commercial real estate values, jobs and payroll 
               in California.  Among other things, Professor Parker noted 
               the following findings:
                i)     California-based retail businesses are losing $4.1 
                 billion annually in sales to exclusively online 
                 retailers.  These losses are projected to grow to $7.7 
                 billion in 2015 and $14.3 billion in 2020;
                ii)    Goldman Sachs estimates that online shopping will 
                 increase from 4.4% of all retail sales to 17.1% of all 
                 retail sales and that since 2000, internet sales have 
                 more than tripled; and, 
                iii)   18,300 full-time equivalent jobs are currently lost 
                 as a result of out-of-state online sales.  This number is 
                 projected to grow to 34,100 in 2015 and 63,400 in 2020.
             i)   Potential Amendments  :  This bill deletes the statutory 
               provisions that would, upon the enactment of authorizing 
               federal legislation, impose a use tax collection obligation 
               on any retailer soliciting orders for TPP by mail if the 
               solicitations are substantial and recurring and if other 
               specified conditions are met.  Under current law, these 
               provisions only become operative if Congress affirmatively 
               acts to overturn or modify  Quill  .  By deleting these 
               provisions, AB 155 would arguably remove California's 
               ability to impose nexus on remote mail-order vendors even 
               if authorized to do so by a change in federal law.  Thus, 
               it is not clear what purpose is served by deleting these 
               provisions.  The author may wish to consider amendments 
               retaining the provisions but modifying them to make 
               reference to remote Internet vendors as well as mail-order 
               companies, thereby bringing the provisions into the 21st 


          Alicante Group
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 


                                                                 AB 155
                                                                  Page M
          Angela's Glass Co. 
          A-Vacuum & Sewing Hospital
          Barnes & Noble 
          Best Buy
          Blackmaster Video
          Blong Ziong, Fresno City council Member
          Bluestocking Books
          Bright Cleaners
          C&M Custom Cabnetry
          California Business Properties Association
          California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
          California Conference of Machinists
          California Labor Federation 
          California Nurses Association
          California Retailers Association 
          California School Employees Association
          California State Association of Counties 
          California Tax Reform Association
          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
          Central Valley Laminating
          Chalet Gourmet
          Chi Holistic Collective
          Chino Hills Network
          Citizens for Better city Government
          City of Berkeley
          Column One, Inc.
          Culver City Chamber of Commerce
          Custom Cabinets by Kumar
          Custom Leisure Services
          Da Avere
          Davies Appliance
          DjMobile Detailing
          DLG Printing
          Dollar and Up
          Early Ford Store
          Echo Antique Gallery 
          Empire Vintage Clothing
          Employee Awareness Alliance
          Engineers and Scientists of California
          FanaBike Enterprises
          Fontanetti's Batting Cages & More
          Forefront Real Estate


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page N
          Glendora Floor Store, Inc.
          Glendora Village Goldsmith
          Glendora Village Pets
          GOGA by Gordana
          Goldstrand Planning Group
          Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
          Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce
          GT-R Wireless
          Hart Environmental, Inc.
          Her Best Friends Closet
          Herbin Acupuncture and Wellness
          Hermary's Home Entertainment Lifestyles
          Hessian Inc.
          Home Depot
          International Longshore & Warehouse Union
          John Carlisle, Merced City council Member
          John R. Hanna, Rancho Santiago Community College District 
          Ken Krause, Waterford City Council member
          Kim's Alterations
          Latino Times/former Chair California Hispanic Chamber of 
          Leach Housekeeping
          Lisa Norman Lingerie
          Lopez Landscape
          "M" is for Mystery?and more
          Magic Moments Portraits
          Main Farms
          Michelle Marie's Caf, LLC
          Mohr Clocks
          Momma's Closet
          Montana Eyecare
          Montana Natural
          Ms. Fits Consignments
          Natural Health Center
          Nelson's Drug Store
          Neufelds Promenade
          99 Cent and Plus
          Northern California Independent Booksellers Association
          Origano Restaurant
          Phariss Tax Service


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page O
          Planet Videos and More
          Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
          Repeat Performance
          Pulp Studio
          Punk Bananas Thrifty Store
          Quesenberrys Pharmacy
          Ray Main Sales
          Reid hardware
          Relles Florist
          Rick's Furniture
          Sake House Yumeya LLC
          San Diego Trading Company
          San Francisco Chamber of commerce
          Sary Moon
          Senor El Taquero
          Sixth Avenue Mail Station
          Small Business California
          Southern California Independent Booksellers Association
          Strings Music
          Stuart Spencer
          Sudberry Properties
          Sugar Hill
          Sumner's Schwinn 
          Sunlight of the Spirit Books and Gifts
          Swanbergs on J
          The Cotton Club
          The Fresno Hock Shoppe
          The Mugger, Inc.
          The Shoe Shop
          The Usuals
          Tower Hydro 
          The Whistle Stop
          Tina's One Stop Shop
          Tom Stallard, Woodland City Council Member
          Tree time Real Estate
          Treeline Realty
          T-Shirt Designs
          UNITE HERE!
          United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council
          Valadez Jewelers
          Village Book Shop
          Village Kitchen Shoppe


                                                                  AB 155
                                                                  Page P
          Village Manor 
          Visiting Angels
          Weathervane for Men
          Webster's Sportscards
          9 individuals  

          California Taxpayers Association
          Direct Marketing Association 
          Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
          Internet Alliance
          Performance Marketing Association 
          Analysis Prepared by  :  M. David Ruff / REV. & TAX. / (916)