BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2321 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair AB 2321 (Rodriguez) - As Amended March 28, 2016 Majority vote. Fiscal committee. SUBJECT: Vehicles: registration and transfers of title or interest: use tax SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), in collecting use taxes, to code transactions to specific addresses when vehicles or vessels are registered to ensure that remittance of tax revenue by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) is made to the specific city or county in which the purchaser resides. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the DMV to determine local use taxes owed by the applicant during registration of a vehicle or vessel according to specific address data provided by the applicant. 2)Requires the BOE to provide the DMV with a list of state tax area codes applicable to each jurisdiction, so the DMV can identify and apply the correct tax area code for the AB 2321 Page 2 applicable local jurisdiction to which the vehicle or vessel will be registered. 3)Requires the DMV to collect and transmit to the BOE specific address data provided by applicants to which a purchased vehicle or vessel will be registered. 4)Requires the BOE to allocate use taxes collected and transmitted by the DMV directly to the jurisdiction where the purchaser registered the vehicle or vessel, based on specific address data provided to the BOE by the DMV. 5)Specifies that data transmitted from the DMV to the BOE shall be subject to Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 7056, governing confidentiality. 6)Requires the BOE to reimburse the DMV for costs associated with this bill. 7)Declares the intent of the Legislature that the DMV and BOE ensure that applicable Bradley-Burns uniform local sales taxes and local transaction and use taxes are collected and remitted to the specific jurisdiction where the vehicle is registered. EXISTING LAW: 1)Authorizes cities and counties to impose a local sales and use tax (SUT), pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local SUT Law, fixed at 1.25% of the sales price of tangible personal property (TPP) sold at retail or purchased outside the county for use within the county. Counties receive 0.25% for county-wide transportation purposes (restricted to road AB 2321 Page 3 maintenance or operation of transit systems), regardless of whether the sale occurs in a city or in the unincorporated area of the county, with the remaining 1% used to support general operations of the city or county in which it is collected. 2)Allows use taxpayers and certain sellers without a permanent place of business to report their local use and sales taxes, respectively, on a countywide basis, which is allocated to local jurisdictions through the countywide pool. However, use tax on transactions of $500,000 or more must be reported directly to the participating jurisdiction in which the first functional use of the property is made. [BOE SUT Regulation 1802] 3)Authorizes cities and counties to impose transactions and use taxes for general or special purposes, at a rate of 0.125% or multiples of 0.125%, if approved by the requisite threshold of voters. 4)Requires a person who purchases a vehicle or undocumented vessel from a person who is not licensed by the DMV as a manufacturer, remanufacturer, dealer, dismantler, or lessor-retailer to pay use tax, and any applicable penalties, to the DMV when registering the vehicle or undocumented vessel. 5)Specifies that the applicable use tax rate is based on the address provided to the DMV by the registered owner of the vehicle or undocumented vessel. 6)Requires the DMV to transmit all use tax and penalty collections to the BOE at least monthly, according to a schedule agreed upon by the DMV and BOE, and requires the BOE AB 2321 Page 4 to reimburse the DMV for associated transmission costs. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the BOE, this bill would not affect state revenues, but only result in a shift in local use tax from one local jurisdiction to another. However, administrative costs will be incurred by the DMV and BOE. COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement : The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill: AB 2321 is a straightforward bill that ensures municipalities receive their fair share of taxes collected on the private sales of vehicles. It accomplishes this by requiring private vehicle transactions to be assigned specific tax area location by the DMV, so that the Board of Equalization can properly identify and allocate the taxes collected. In 2014, DMV reported approximately $65 million in activity related to an estimated 2 million private vehicle and vessel registrations. This bill ensures that the city where the private sale took place, receive its portion of the taxes collected. Improving this process will result in more accurate allocations and may stand to benefit smaller and disadvantaged cities and unincorporated county areas. 2)Arguments in Support : Proponents state that the practice to be enacted by this bill is "already the practice for the distribution of local voter-approved transaction and use tax rates. However, the Bradley-Burns portion is treated differently and is coded only to the county. The end result is that the BOE allocates the appropriate amount of Bradley-Burns revenue but to the county pool rather than the individual jurisdictions where the vehicle or vessel is AB 2321 Page 5 registered." To address this problem, "AB 2321 proposes that use tax collections on private party vehicle and vessel transactions be assigned specific tax area location information by the DMV?. This fix would provide the BOE the needed information without the need for substantial change to the current process or technology." 3)Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law : Currently, the BOE collects SUT on a 7.5% statewide base rate, composed of a state portion and a local portion for cities and counties. The local portion is referred to as the Bradley-Burns Local SUT (Bradley-Burns) and is fixed at 1.25% of the sales price of TPP. Of the 1.25%, cities and counties receive 1% to support general operations, with the remaining 0.25% designated for countywide transportation purposes. The use tax is imposed in lieu of the sales tax for the privilege of the property's storage, use, or other consumption in California. The use tax is generally imposed on out-of-state purchases brought into California, but also applies in private party transactions of vehicles and vessels. 4)Countywide Pool Process : For use tax transactions that cannot be easily identified to a specific location, the BOE generally distributes the local portion through countywide pools. Under this process, local use tax revenues are prorated into pools for each city in the county and the unincorporated area of the county, at a ratio based upon each jurisdiction's total share of local SUT revenues generated in the county. For example, if the unincorporated area of the county generates 8% of the county's total taxable sales, it will receive 8% of the countywide pool. AB 2321 Page 6 The countywide pool accounts for about 12% of the total local SUT reported, with use tax accounting for the majority of the pooled revenues. Taxpayers who report use tax allocated through the countywide pool include out-of-state sellers who ship merchandise directly to California consumers, construction contractors for materials used, long-term lessors of equipment and other tangible personal property, and private sellers of vehicles and vessels. The BOE has always used the countywide pool process for allocating the local use tax generated by private party vehicle and vessel transactions, the largest component of county pool use tax revenues. 5)Transaction and Use Tax Law : Cities and counties are authorized to impose additional transactions and use taxes, known as district taxes, subject to a vote of the people. General purpose taxes require majority voter approval and special purpose taxes require two-thirds voter approval. Generally, district taxes may be imposed in 0.125% increments, up to a total of 2%. As of April 1, 2016, 31 California counties, 132 cities, and 7 towns impose SUT higher than the base rate due to voter approval of additional district taxes. Unlike allocation of the Bradley-Burns through the countywide pool process, however, the BOE allocates district taxes directly to the city or county in which it is imposed. 6)Role of the DMV : Existing law requires the purchaser of a vehicle or vessel in a private party transaction to pay use tax, including both Bradley-Burns and applicable district taxes to the DMV during registration of the vehicle or vessel. The DMV then transmits all use tax collections to the BOE. For the purposes of allocating Bradley-Burns, the DMV codes taxes collected from the applicant to the county in which the vehicle is being registered. The BOE then remits the taxes to AB 2321 Page 7 the county of jurisdiction for distribution through the countywide pool. The DMV collects approximately $70 million annually in Bradley-Burns revenue on behalf of the BOE. For purposes of allocating district taxes, the DMV codes taxes collected from the applicant to the specific city or county jurisdiction in which the vehicle is being registered. This bill proposes that the DMV code, and the BOE remit, Bradley-Burns revenues in a process similar to that established for district taxes, so that the 1% of Bradley-Burns revenues can be directly allocated to fund general purposes in the specific city or county it is paid. 7)Shifting Tax Revenues : As noted in the BOE's staff analysis, this bill would result in a shift of revenues between local government jurisdictions. For example, if a used car is purchased in the City of Sacramento for $3,000, the table below uses hypothetical countywide pool percentages to illustrate how the provisions of this bill could increase allocation of Bradley-Burns for the City of Sacramento, but reduce allocation of Bradley-Burns for other cities and the unincorporated area in Sacramento County: --------------------------------------------------------------- |Jurisdiction| Countywide | Direct | Indirect | Change | | | Pool | Allocation | Allocation | | | | Percentage | under this | under | | | | | bill | current law | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| AB 2321 Page 8 |Unincorporat| 10% | $0 | $3.00 | -$3.00 | |ed | | | | | |Sacramento | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Citrus | 13% | $0 | $3.90 | -$3.90 | |Heights | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Elk Grove | 18% | $0 | $5.40 | -$5.40 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Folsom | 19% | $0 | $5.70 | -$5.70 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Galt | 9% | $0 | $2.70 | -$2.70 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Isleton | 4% | $0 | $1.20 | -$1.20 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Rancho | 9% | $0 | $2.70 | -$2.70 | |Cordova | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| |Sacramento | 18% | $30 | $5.40 | +24.60 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |------------+------------+------------+-------------+----------| | Total | | $30.00 | $30.00 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | AB 2321 Page 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- The author of this bill states that more accurate allocations may stand to benefit smaller and disadvantaged cities and unincorporated county areas. In order for smaller cities and unincorporated county areas to increase their allocation of Bradley-Burns under this bill, it must be assumed that a high volume of private party transactions of vehicles and vessels occur in such jurisdictions, at a value that exceeds what these jurisdictions would otherwise be allocated from sales made across the county. It is unclear how revenues will shift as a result of this bill. 8)Setting a New Precedent : The countywide pool process is not prescribed in statute, but in BOE regulations, and has been upheld by the courts as "an accounting technique which is reasonable, [and] subserves the interests of all cities and counties" (City of San Joaquin v. State Board of Equalization (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 365). The City of San Joaquin had argued that the pooling process failed to allocate taxes levied by cities in connection with construction contracts on a transaction for transaction basis, resulting in the BOE giving taxes belonging to one local jurisdiction to another. However, the Court found that while the pooling process does result in one city's sales taxes being allocated to other jurisdictions, that city also shares in the sales tax revenues of other cities. Additionally, by having its SUT ordinance administered by the BOE, under an administrative contract agreed upon by both parties, the city gains a tremendous economic advantage. Thus, the city has not necessarily sustained a loss of tax income from the BOE's accounting practice. AB 2321 Page 10 According to the BOE, the countywide pool process allows for efficient administration of both SUT when a sale cannot be easily identified with a permanent place of business or a specific location in the state. However, the BOE has allowed for some of the use tax revenue previously allocated through the countywide pool process to be directly allocated to the city or county in which it is imposed. For example, the BOE has determined that a retailer must report the local use tax directly to the jurisdiction of first functional use when the transaction totals $500,000 or more. Since the BOE currently has the regulatory authority to decide when use the countywide pool process best serves taxpayers, the Committee may wish to consider whether requiring the direct allocation of use taxes from private party transactions on vehicles and vessels should be first evaluated via the regulatory process. 9)Administrative Issues : According to the BOE, the codes provided to the DMV to identify the specific city or county jurisdiction in which the vehicle is being registered for purposes of allocating district taxes are different from the codes the BOE would have to provide the DMV for purposes of allocating Bradley-Burns directly. For example, a city has a specific tax area code for purposes of identifying Bradley-Burns, but a separate tax area code for purposes of identifying the district taxes collected within that city. Thus, new information would have to be shared between the DMV and BOE to carry out the provisions of this bill. The relationship between the DMV and BOE is established by an interagency contract. The most recent contract was entered into on July 1, 2015 and expires on June 30, 2016. While the terms of subsequent contracts can be updated to require the BOE to share tax rate codes with the DMV so the DMV can inform the BOE where Bradley-Burns revenues should be directly allocated, these additional duties on both agencies will like raise administrative costs of the contract. The contract is collectively paid for by the General Fund, local jurisdictions imposing Bradley-Burns, and local jurisdictions imposing AB 2321 Page 11 district taxes. Although certain local jurisdictions may recover more Bradley-Burns revenues as a result of this bill, the cost will be borne by all local jurisdictions across the state. 10)Author's Amendments : Following discussions with BOE staff, the Author's office has suggested the following amendments to avoid duplicative language and clarify the practical effect of this bill: a) Shift language amending Part 1 of R&TC pertaining to Sales and Use Tax Law to Part 1.5 of R&TC pertaining to Uniform Local Sales and Use Taxes; b) Correct references to "local sales taxes" to "local use taxes"; c) Strike the requirement for the DMV to utilize all available tools to determine the applicable tax rate, as it is already ongoing practice to do so; d) Strike the requirement for transmitted data to be subject to R&TC Section 7056, as the confidentiality of transmitted data is already protected under current law; e) Strike the requirement that the DMV transmit address data to the BOE, as the BOE would not need address data for allocating use tax pursuant to this bill; f) Add language specifying that the DMV transmit tax area codes and the amount of use tax attributable to those tax area codes to the BOE for proper direct allocation; and, AB 2321 Page 12 g) Correct a drafting error that omitted a provision of this bill from R&TC Section 6293. 11)Double Referral : This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Transportation, which passed this bill on April 4, 2016, with a vote of 16-0. For additional discussion of DMV administration related to this bill, please refer to the analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Transportation. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California State Association of Counties League of California Cities MuniServices Opposition None on file AB 2321 Page 13 Analysis Prepared by:Irene Ho / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098