BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 458
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 24, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 458 (Wieckowski) - As Introduced: February 19, 2013
Policy Committee: Revenue and
Taxation Vote: 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill bars taxpayers from claiming a deduction for amounts
paid for punitive damages. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that no deduction shall be allowed for any amount
paid or incurred for punitive damages in connection with any
judgment, or settlement.
2)Applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1,
2014.
3)Takes immediate effect as a tax levy.
FISCAL EFFECT
The Franchise Tax Board estimates revenue gains of $400,000 in
fiscal year (FY) 2013-14, $1 million in FY 2014-15, and $1.1
million in FY 2015-16.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Supporters argue that tax deductions are intended to
reward or incentivize good behavior, based upon italicize
business expenses incurred in the production of income.
Punitive damages, however, are by definition, not incurred in
the production of income. In the employment context, that
could be racism, sexism, homophobia or any number of other
civil rights violations. Supporters state that in other
contexts it could be the calculated decision to put corporate
profits ahead of public health and safety or a widespread
Ponzi scheme directed at the elderly. Punitive damages exist
AB 458
Page 2
to punish and deter wrongdoing, and reflect the opposite of a
bona fide business expense.
2)Opposition . Opponents, including the California Taxpayers
Association and the California Association of Health Services
at Home, argue AB 458 would eliminate the current deduction
allowed for punitive damages in connection with any judgments,
settlements or actions. They note punitive damages are often
times not associated with any culpability on the part of the
company or association, but represent little more than a deep
pocket to pursue. Opponents contend denying this deduction
will ultimately hurt employers, employees and the economy.
Opponents argue California cannot afford to negatively impact
the companies that are still here providing critical jobs to
Californians.
3)Background. As the name implies, compensatory damages are
awarded to compensate a plaintiff for a loss or injury
suffered as a result of another's breach of duty. Punitive or
exemplary damages, by contrast, are generally not designed to
compensate the plaintiff for actual losses, but rather to
deter the defendant (and other similarly situated persons)
from engaging in the underlying behavior that caused harm.
Thus, juries typically assess punitive damages in an amount
they believe will be sufficient to punish the defendant and
deter future wrongdoing. Defendants, however, are not always
punished to the degree sought. This is because punitive
damages paid by business defendants are tax deductible. As a
result, these businesses often pay far less after taxes than
the jury intended.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081