BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 33
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 24, 2013

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

                     AB 33 (Perea) - As Amended:  April 8, 2013 

          Policy Committee:                              Revenue and  
          Taxation     Vote:                            9-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill allows an income tax credit to a qualified taxpayer in  
          an amount equal to 15% of qualified royalties paid for the use  
          of a patent owned by the University of California or the  
          California State University.  Specifically, this bill: 

          1)Authorizes a tax credit, under both the personal income tax  
            and the corporation tax laws, for taxable years beginning on  
            or after January 1, 2013, in an amount equal to 15% of the  
            qualified royalties paid by a qualified taxpayer during a  
            taxable year.

          2)Limits the total amount of credit allowed for all taxable  
            years to $100 million.

          3)Specifies that the cutoff date shall be the last day of the  
            calendar quarter within which FTB estimates it will have  
            received timely filed original returns claiming the credit in  
            an amount totaling $100 million.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          The FTB estimates this bill will result in an annual revenue  
          loss of $23 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year, $24 million in  
          2014-15 and $25 million in 2015-16.  

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose.   The author argues California has been dealing with a  
            high unemployment rate for a number of years, reaching as high  
            as 12.4 percent in 2010.  Jobs are being relocated out of  








                                                                  AB 33
                                                                  Page  2

            state to lower tax jurisdictions and to more competitive  
            business environments elsewhere.  According to the author, AB  
            33 would give California the ability to recapture out-of-state  
            investments and provide companies with an incentive to create  
            jobs here.  In addition, the author notes, the direct link  
            with research and public universities would encourage  
            investment in our universities at a time when private  
            investment has decreased.  

            In 2011, 58 startup companies were formed from University of  
            California inventions.  The author argues this shows the job  
            creation potential within our public universities, and  
            provides California a significant opportunity to help market  
            itself as a business friendly environment.

           2)Support  .  Proponents contend AB 33 reduces the financial risk  
            involved with innovation, encourages investment in research  
            conducted at the state's public universities, and positions  
            the state to better convert its leadership in research into  
            the development of new job-creating products and services.   
            Proponents believe this bill gives California a competitive  
            advantage by improving the business environment with an  
            incentive no other state can offer.  

            According to supporters, while almost all of the industries in  
            which California leads the world grew out of university-based  
            research, it is often transferring viable research discoveries  
            to the marketplace that pose the greatest challenge to  
            innovators and entrepreneurs.  Proponents contend providing an  
            incentive for these efforts, through a tax credit on royalty  
            payments, has the potential to increase investment in, and  
            commercialization of, UC inventions and discoveries.

           3)Opposition  .  Opponents argue the tax system is already full of  
            incentives for R&D activities, at a level which is highest in  
            the country.  Opponents state it is up to the market to  
            determine the appropriate payments and profits on those  
            royalties, and that state taxpayers gain little, if anything,  
            by paying out $100 million in tax credits in situations where  
            a product is likely to be fully commercialized in any case.   
            Proponents also point out much off-shore tax avoidance is the  
            result of failure to return royalties to where they have been  
            generated, and that there are too many opportunities for tax  
            avoidance, and a lack of direct benefits to California, in  
            this bill.








                                                                  AB 33
                                                                  Page  3

                
            4)Background  . A patent box simply means a tax incentive that  
            allows income from the sale of patented products to be taxed  
            at a lower rate than other income.  Literally, it is a box on  
            the tax form for a qualified taxpayer to check.  A patent box  
            differs from a research and development (R&D) credit.  While a  
            R&D credit is intended to spur R&D activity, a patent or  
            innovation box is put in place to incentivize  
            commercialization of innovations, rather than just the conduct  
            of R&D. 

           5)Previous legislation  .  AB 1818 (Perea) of 2012 was similar to  
            this bill.  AB 1818 was held in this committee's Suspense  
            File.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081