BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 697 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION Philip Ting, Chair AB 697 (Chu) - As Amended March 26, 2015 Majority Vote. Tax levy. Fiscal committee. SUBJECT: Personal income tax: credits: senior citizen renters SUMMARY: Allows an income tax credit to low-income seniors in an amount equal to the increase in rent of a qualified residence, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1)Allows an income tax credit under the Personal Income Tax (PIT) Law to a qualified taxpayer in an amount equal to the increase in rent of a qualified residence paid or incurred by the qualified taxpayer for the taxable year as compared to the previous taxable year. AB 697 Page 2 2)Defines a "qualified taxpayer" as a person that meets all of the following requirements: a) He or she is 62 years of age or older; b) He or she rents a qualified residence as his/her primary residence, is named on the lease of that residence and has rented that residence for a period of 12 months or more; and, c) His or her combined annual household income is $50,000 or less, more than one-third of which is spent on rent. 3)Defines a "qualifying residence" as a property that is located in the County of Alameda, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Ventura, and the County of Santa Clara. 4)Applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2019. 5)Allows any unused credit to carry over eight years until exhausted. 6)Disallows the credit if a renter's credit has been claimed by a taxpayer pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 17053.5. 7)Contains legislative findings and declarations relating to the fact that a growing numbers of homeless senior citizens are AB 697 Page 3 being priced out of their homes. 8)Takes effect immediately as a tax levy. EXISTING LAW: 1)Allows a nonrefundable income tax credit for qualified renters in the following amounts: a) $60 for single or married filing separately with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $37,768 or less; and, b) $120 for married filing jointly, head of household, or qualified widow or widower with an AGI of $73,536 or less. (R&TC Section 17053.5.) 2)Defines a "qualified renter" as an individual who satisfies both of the following requirements: a) Is a California resident for all or part of the tax year; and, b) Rented and occupied California premises constituting his or her principal place of residence for at least 50% of the taxable year. 3)Excludes from the definition of a "qualified renter" certain individuals who otherwise would qualify. For example, an individual who, for more than 50% of the taxable year, rented and occupied premises which were exempt from property taxes AB 697 Page 4 would not qualify as a qualified renter. Similarly, a person who has been granted the homeowner's property tax exemption during the taxable would not be eligible to claim the existing renter's credit. 4)Requires the Legislature to provide increases in benefits to qualified renters that are comparable to the average increase in benefits provided to homeowners under the homeowner's property tax exemption. (California Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3(k)). 5)Requires any new tax credit legislation introduced on or after January 1, 2015, to include specific goals, purposes, objectives, and performance measures. (R&TC Section 41). FISCAL EFFECT: The FTB staff estimates that this bill will result in an annual General Fund revenue loss of $26 million in fiscal year (FY) 2015-16, $56 million in FY 2016-17, and $70 million in FY 2017-18. COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement . The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill: "AB 697 is a pilot program that will provide necessary data on how our State can lessen the effects of the rising costs of housing. California continues to be at the top of list of the least affordable states to reside in. This demonstration project will allow stakeholders to ascertain if a tax credit is an effective means to assist low-income senior citizens in reducing some of the financial burden that occurs with a rent AB 697 Page 5 increase." 2)Arguments in Support . The proponents of this bill support this bill's approach to help elderly low-income tenants. They argue that a tax credit is needed to "put money back into the pockets of those who need it." 3)Arguments in Opposition . The opponents argue that this bill "violates principles of good tax policy" and the "Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction." The opponents do not believe that a tax credit may be provided to taxpayers of "one county and not to similarly situated taxpayers in other counties simply on the basis of their location." The opponents state that they will remove their opposition "if the bill is amended to provide the same rent moratorium and tax credit to taxpayers who meet the criteria specified in the bill in every county." 4)The Purpose of This Bill . According to the author's office, the rising cost of housing continues to be a problem for many individuals, especially low-income senior citizens. Thus, this bill is intended to create a pilot program to determine if a tax credit is an effective means to assist low-income senior citizens who often have difficulty paying for expenses such as healthcare costs, food and transportation. Only four counties would participate in the pilot program: the County of Alameda, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Ventura, and the County of Santa Clara. 5)Tax Expenditures . Existing law provides various credits, deductions, exclusions, and exemptions for particular taxpayer groups. In the late 1960s, U.S. Treasury officials began arguing that these features of the tax law should be referred to as "expenditures" since they are generally enacted to accomplish some governmental purpose and there is a AB 697 Page 6 determinable cost associated with each (in the form of foregone revenues). As noted by the FTB staff, tax expenditures are often adopted because the Legislature hopes that the incentives will alter the behavior of taxpayers. "However, it is very difficult to know if a tax expenditure has been calibrated properly for achieving its desired goal. For example, if a tax credit intended to encourage additional investments of a specific type is set too high, the credit may have the effect of diverting investment from other projects that would be more beneficial to the economy. Another possibility is that a tax expenditure may be adopted on equity grounds to offset some cost peculiar to a particular group of taxpayers, but it may also induce behavioral changes. For example, the Renter's Credit was designed to offset the perceived inequities in tax treatment between renters and homeowners. However, the Renter's Credit actually offers renters an incentive to continue renting their home rather than buying it. As a result, this credit undermines the mortgage interest deduction and other tax expenditures that were designed specifically to encourage home ownership." (California Income Tax Expenditures, FTB 2010 Report, pp. 21-22.) 6)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. While this affords taxpayers greater financial predictability, 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, effectively AB 697 Page 7 resulting in a "one-way ratchet" whereby tax expenditures can be conferred by majority vote, but cannot be rescinded, irrespective of their cost or efficacy, without a supermajority vote. 7)Existing Renter's Credit . Existing law provides an income tax credit to low-income taxpayers who rent their primary residence. Since 1999, the credit has been nonrefundable. There is no comparable federal credit. The amount of the credit is $60 for single, married filing separately, and head of household filers with incomes not exceeding the California AGI limitation, currently $37,768. The credit amount is $120 for married filing jointly and qualified widowers provided that their AGI does not exceed $75,536. The renter's credit was originally enacted in 1972 as part of a comprehensive property tax reform program. The credit was intended to equalize property taxes between renters and homeowners by providing a benefit directly to the renter. The Committee may wish to consider amending the existing renter's credit program instead of creating a new tax credit. For example, the Committee may wish to increase the amount of the renter's credit for qualified seniors who rent in designated counties. 8)Alternative Approach . While this bill's tax credit is designed to help the most vulnerable segment of California residents, it is not clear whether that the proposed incentive would achieve this goal. Seniors 65 years of age or older, with AGI of $18,238 or less, are not required to pay California income tax and are unable to utilize any tax credit. Consequently, the proposed nonrefundable credit would not benefit seniors who have little or no state income tax liability. However, almost any tax expenditure program could simply be replaced with a direct expenditure program. Thus, the Committee may wish to consider whether the state could subsidize rent paid by qualified seniors by making direct payments to them, equivalent to the tax savings that would have been available under the credit, instead of the tax AB 697 Page 8 credit. 9)Rent Control in California . Fifteen cities in California have rent control ordinances (Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Campbell, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, and West Hollywood). These ordinances are most common in cities with large populations and low vacancy rates, where tenants may have difficulty finding affordable housing. Local rent control ordinances specify how much a landlord can increase the rent of an existing tenant. Generally, under local rent control ordinances, a landlord can increase a tenant's rent once every 12 months by the allowable annual rent increase without filing a petition with the local rent board. Historically, the state has invested in the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing for low and moderate-income households. The funding sources to support construction of affordable housing have drastically diminished over the last five years. With the elimination of redevelopment agencies and the exhaustion of state housing bonds, California has reduced its funding for the development and preservation of affordable homes by 79% - from approximately $1.7 billion per year to nearly nothing. While the goal of this bill is admirable, it will likely do nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing for seniors. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the credit may achieve its objective if conditions in the rental market are favorable to landlords. Under these market conditions, landlords may be able to increase rents by an amount equal to the Renter's Credit, leaving no benefit to the renters. The Committee may wish to consider whether a better investment of the General Fund monies required to fund this bill's tax credit would be to provide funding for the construction of new affordable units. 10)Deductibility of State Income Tax . State income taxes are deductible for federal income tax purposes. Thus, for those AB 697 Page 9 who itemize deductions, up to 40% of the state income tax would effectively be borne by the Federal Government in the form of reduced federal income tax payments. Thus, a tax credit or deduction on the state level generally translates into an increased amount of federal income taxes paid by Californians. By decreasing the state income tax obligation of seniors, this bill would effectively subsidize the federal coffers. 11)R&TC Section 41 : On September 29, 2014, Governor Brown signed SB 1335 (Leno), Chapter 845, Statutes of 2014, which added R&TC Section 41. SB 1335 recognized that the Legislature should apply the same level of review used for government spending programs to tax preference programs, including tax credits. Thus, Section 41 requires any bill that is introduced on or after January 1, 2015 and allows a new PIT credit to contain specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax credit will achieve. In addition, Section 41 requires detailed performance indicators for the Legislature to use when measuring whether the tax credit meets the goals, purposes, and objectives so-identified. In its current form, this bill does not specify the goals, purposes, objectives or performance measures of the proposed credit program and, thus, is not in compliance with the requirements of R&TC Section 41. The Committee may wish to consider asking the author to comply with Section 41 requirements. 12)Equal Protection Clause . The opponents question the constitutionality of this bill under the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits any state from denying to "any person within AB 697 Page 10 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection clause reaches well beyond racial classifications, targeting a broad range of discriminatory legislation and has played a significant role in challenges to state and local taxes. The tax laws are full of distinctions and classifications. For example, state legislatures have created several income tax brackets based on the taxpayer's income, enacted lower tax rates of tax for capital gains in comparison to ordinary income, and provided an exclusion from sales tax for purchases of intangible property, among others. The Equal Protection Clause does not necessarily prohibit state legislatures from drawing distinctions among classes of individuals or property. However, it requires that the distinctions rationally further a legitimate state interest unless a classification scheme implicates the exercise of a fundamental right or categorizes persons on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic. Practically speaking, a state tax statute would be upheld if a plausible policy reason exists for the classification, the classification is used to further the statutory goal and it is not so tenuous as to be arbitrary or irrational. In this case, this bill would create a tax credit program available to seniors with a specified AGI who live in certain designated counties. The proposed tax credit pilot program is intended to help low-income senior renters remain in their homes and designates counties based on the average fair market rent. Clearly, the state government has a legitimate interest in protecting the most vulnerable segment of its population and the distinction drawn between the low-income seniors living in the most expensive counties in California and those living elsewhere in the state cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. 13)FTB's Implementation Concerns . In its current form, this bill's tax provisions lack sufficient detail to enable the FTB to administer the credit. For example, the credit is based on the "increase in rent". This bill may be interpreted to allow several people residing in the same household to claim the full amount of the credit for the same "rent increase." AB 697 Page 11 Furthermore, it is not readily apparent what "combined annual household income" means. Is it the amount of AGI or taxable income? What type of "property" is eligible for the credit? A mobile home, vacant land, or property that has been granted a homeowners' exemption? FTB staff has identified these and other technical considerations that would need to be addressed before this tax credit program could be effectively implemented. 14)Related Legislation . a) AB 1229 (Campos) would create a credit equal to the amount of foregone rent pursuant to the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption program. AB 1229 is pending hearing by this Committee. b) AB 476 (Chang) would increase the homeowners' exemption from $7,000 to $25,000 of the full value of a dwelling and increase the renter's credit for qualified renters, as provided. AB 476 is pending hearing by this Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Apartment Association of Orange County Apartment Association, California Southern Cities AB 697 Page 12 East Bay Rental Housing Association Nor Cal Rental Property Association North Valley Property Owners Association Opposition California Taxpayers Association (oppose unless amended) Analysis Prepared by:Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098