BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 232 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 13, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION Raul Bocanegra, Chair AB 232 (Ting) - As Amended: May 6, 2013 Majority vote. Tax levy. Fiscal committee. SUBJECT : Income taxes: credit: gun buybacks SUMMARY : Provides a tax credit, under the Personal Income Tax (PIT) Law, for a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or assault weapon in working condition that is either surrendered or sold to local law enforcement in a gun buyback program. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides a PIT credit, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, and before January 1, 2017, of $250 for a handgun, shotgun, or rifle, and $500 for an assault weapon. 2)Limits the credit to $1,000 for each taxpayer per taxable year. 3)Requires the taxpayer to keep a record of the type of handgun, shotgun, rifle, or assault weapon surrendered or sold to local law enforcement in a buyback program. A taxpayer is also required to keep track of the number of weapons surrendered, and the name, address, and date of the buyback program, or any other information prescribed by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The records shall be furnished to the FTB upon request. 4)Provides that a tax credit may be carried forward for two succeeding years. 5)Authorizes the FTB to promulgate rules and regulations as necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions in this bill. 6)Sunsets on December 1, 2017. 7)Takes effect immediately as a tax levy. EXISTING LAW allows: AB 232 Page 2 1)Various credits under both the PIT Law and the Corporation Tax Law. These credits are generally designed to encourage socially-beneficial behavior or to provide relief to taxpayers who incur specified expenses. 2)A taxpayer to claim a deduction for charitable contributions made to a qualifying organization, in modified conformity with federal law. FISCAL EFFECT : The FTB estimates that this bill will result in a revenue loss of $4.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 2013-14, $9.2 million in FY 2014-15, and $11 million in FY 2015-16. COMMENTS : 3)The author has provided the following information in support of this bill: Gun buyback programs have removed a wide variety of guns from circulation, including handguns, assault weapons and even rocket launchers. Whatever the type of weapon, studies indicate that it is safer to not have a gun in the home than to have a gun. Consider the following facts: a gun in the home increases the risk of unintentional firearm-related death among children; people who keep a gun in the home are almost twice as likely to be murdered with a gun and almost 17 times more likely to take their own lives using a firearm; and, it is more likely that a gun used in the home will be used against a family member than to protect a family member. Taxpayers can bear the brunt of these tragic incidents. Medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and reductions in quality of life are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually. According to research, 80% of the medical costs for firearm injuries are borne by taxpayers. Nationally, lifetime medical costs for gunshot injuries total an estimated $2.3 billion, or $6 million per day. U.S. taxpayers pay for almost half of those lifetime costs ($1.1 billion). California accounts for more than 12% of gun violence in this country and state taxpayers are paying a substantial share of associated costs. One study found that up to 93% AB 232 Page 3 of gunshot victims in Alameda County were uninsured. This is likely reflected in many other urban and suburban California counties. As a state, we can act to remove more guns from circulation by incentivizing more gun buyback programs and more gun buyback participants. By taking this action, we are lowering the chances of a misplaced, unwanted weapon causing damage, injury or tragically, death. 4)Committee Staff Comments: a) Heightened Danger from Guns : According to David Hemenway, Ph.D., Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, "the presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage." As an example, "a large percentage of homicides - and especially homicides in the home - occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. Most gun killings are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings; it is just a question of the caliber of the gun, whether a vital organ is hit, and how much time passes before medical treatment arrives. " (Susan Perry, The Health Risk of Having a Gun in the Home, Minnesota Post, December 17, 2012). Substantial evidence has been provided as to the dangers of having a gun in the home. According to the author, the presence of a gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times higher, and accidental death four times higher. Furthermore, it is more likely that a gun used in the home will be used against a family member than to protect a family member. b) What is a "tax expenditure"? : Existing law provides various credits, deductions, exclusions, and exemptions for particular taxpayer groups. In the late 1960s, United States Treasury officials began arguing that these features of the tax law should be referred to as "expenditures," AB 232 Page 4 since they are generally enacted to accomplish some governmental purpose and there is a determinable cost associated with each (in the form of foregone revenues). This bill would enact a new tax expenditure program, in the form of a tax credit for taxpayers surrendering their weapons to a law enforcement gun buyback program. c) How is a tax expenditure different from a direct expenditure? : As the Department of Finance notes in its annual Tax Expenditure Report, there are several key differences between tax expenditures and direct expenditures. First, tax expenditures are reviewed less frequently than direct expenditures once they are put in place. This can offer taxpayers greater certainty, but it can also result in tax expenditures remaining a part of the tax code without demonstrating any public benefit. Second, there is generally no control over the amount of revenue losses associated with any given tax expenditure. Finally, it should also be noted that, once enacted, it takes a two-thirds vote to rescind an existing tax expenditure absent a sunset date. This bill includes a sunset date. d) Windfall for Savvy Taxpayers : This bill provides a $250 tax credit for a handgun, shotgun, and rifle, or a $500 tax credit for an assault weapon. Under the provisions of this bill, a taxpayer may be able to purchase a shotgun for $100, surrender the weapon at a gun buyback program, and reap a $250 dollar tax credit, resulting in a net benefit of $150. The provisions of this bill provide no discretion for law enforcement, and establish a blanket credit amount for all handguns, shotguns, and rifles. e) Double-Dipping : AB 232 provides a tax credit for a weapon in working condition that is either surrendered without consideration or sold to local law enforcement in a gun buyback program. Under the provisions of this bill, it may be possible for a taxpayer to sell a shotgun at a gun buyback program, receive consideration for the weapon, and then claim a $250 tax credit. Assuming that a shotgun is purchased for $100, if the taxpayer sells the gun to law enforcement and receives $50, the taxpayer will receive a net benefit of $200. ($250 tax credit + $50 buyback consideration - $100 purchase price). AB 232 provides a credit limitation of $1,000 per taxable year, which would allow a taxpayer to repeat the process twelve times during AB 232 Page 5 the course of the program. f) Lack of Clarity : AB 232 fails to provide definitions for a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or assault weapon. Though it may be easy to distinguish between a handgun and a shotgun, it may not be as easy to distinguish between a rifle and an assault weapon. The lack of definitions may cause confusion as to the amount of tax credit a taxpayer is entitled to claim. Additionally, this bill requires that the weapon be in working condition. However, it is unclear as to how law enforcement will verify the working condition of a firearm when it is surrendered during a buyback program. g) Unintended Consequences : The Los Angeles Police Department held a gun buyback program late last year, giving $100 for handguns, rifles, and shotguns, and $200 for an assault weapons. One of the best ways of encouraging criminals to surrender their weapons is by advertising a "No Questions Asked" policy. This encourages individuals to turn in weapons that may have been used during the commission of a crime. Two provisions in this bill may discourage criminals from coming forward. First, this bill requires a taxpayer to keep a record of the weapons surrendered during a gun buyback program. AB 232 also requires a taxpayer to furnish those records to FTB upon request. Criminals generally do not want to keep a record of the weapons they have used during the commission of a crime, much less provide that information to a state tax agency. Second, criminals are unlikely to file taxes. This is because stolen money, though income, is not generally reported to the Internal Revenue Service or the FTB. As such, criminals may not be able to take advantage of a tax credit. It seems that under the provisions of this bill, criminals may be discouraged from surrendering weapons that have been used during the commission of a crime. h) Alternatives : The author states the goal of this bill is to remove guns from circulation by incentivizing participation in gun buyback programs. Though this bill's tax credit attempts to achieve the goal, the revenue loss associated with this tax credit may be better utilized by having the state simply appropriate funds directly to the gun buyback programs. AB 232 Page 6 i) Double-referral : This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, and passed out of the Committee on a 5 - 2 vote on April 16, 2013. For additional discussion of this bill's provisions, please refer to that committee's analysis. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None on file Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Carlos Anguiano / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098