BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 150 Page 1 (Without Reference to File) SENATE THIRD READING SB 150 (Nguyen and Huff) As Amended September 11, 2015 Majority vote. Tax levy SENATE VOTE: 39-0 ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Revenue & |7-0 |Ting, Brough, | | |Taxation | |Dababneh, Gipson, | | | | |Roger Hernández, | | | | |Mullin, Patterson | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |16-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | | | | |Bloom, Bonta, | | | | |Calderon, Chang, | | | | |Daly, Gallagher, | | | | |Eduardo Garcia, | | SB 150 Page 2 | | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | | | | |Rendon, Wagner, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Excludes from gross income loan amounts discharged when the borrower is unable to complete a program of study because the school closes or did something wrong. Specifically, this bill: 1)Modifies Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 108(f)(1) to provide that gross income does not include the discharge of any student loan if the individual is an eligible individual for the taxable year. 2)Modifies IRC Section 108(f)(2) to provide that a student loan means a student obligation note or other debt evidencing a loan to any individual for the purpose of attending a for-profit higher education company or for the purpose of consolidating or refinancing a loan used to attend a for-profit higher education company, which is either a guaranteed student loan, an educational loan, or a loan eligible for consolidation or refinancing under Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 United States Code Section 1071 et seq.). 3)Provides an individual as an "eligible individual for a taxable year" if any of the following apply during the taxable year: a) An individual granted a discharge of any student loan pursuant to the discharge agreement. A "discharge SB 150 Page 3 agreement" is defined as an agreement between ECMC Group, Inc., Zenith Education Group, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concerning the purchase of certain assets of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., dated February 2, 2015; b) The individual attended a Corinthian Colleges, Inc. school on or before May 1, 2015, is granted a discharge of any student loan made in connection with attending that school, and is not covered by any of the above; or, c) An individual is granted a discharge of any student loan pursuant to the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Borrower's Rights and Responsibilities Statement due to either of the following: i) The individual could not complete a program of study because the school closed; or, ii) The individual successfully asserts that the school did something wrong or failed to do something that it should have done. 4)Applies to discharges of indebtedness occurring on or after January 1, 2015, and before January 1, 2020. 5)Takes effect immediately as a tax levy. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that "gross income" includes all income from whatever source derived, including compensation for services, business SB 150 Page 4 income, gains from property, interest, dividends, rents, and royalties, unless specifically excluded. 2)Provides that in the case of an individual, gross income does not include any amount which would be included by reason of discharge of any student debt if such discharge was pursuant to a provision of such loan under which all or part of the indebtedness of the individual would be discharged if the individual worked for a certain period of time in certain professions for any of a broad class of employers. IRC Section 108(f). 3)Federal Student Aid, an Office of the United States Department of Education, has a program that forgives student loans in a limited number of circumstances, including what's referred to as a closed school discharge, which means a student loan may be forgiven if a student's school closes while they are enrolled and the student cannot complete their program of study because of the closure, or if a student withdraws from the school within 120 days of the school's closure. There is no specific exclusion from income for such forgiveness, meaning student loans that are forgiven as a result of a school closure are generally includable in the borrower's income. However, individuals may exclude from gross income forgiven student loans to the extent they are insolvent. FISCAL EFFECT: The Franchise Tax Board estimates an annual General Fund revenue loss of $35 million in fiscal year (FY) 2015-16, $100,000 in FY 2016-17, and $100,000 in FY 2017-18. COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement. The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill: SB 150 Page 5 Following the closure of 107 Corinthian College campuses, many former students are now seeking a partial or full discharge of their student loan debt. Unfortunately, if their debt is cancelled, discharged, or forgiven, that debt may be subject to state (and federal) income tax. To aid these students, Senate Bill 150 removes tax liability on forgiven federal loan debt for students who choose to forgo the credits that they earned. Nearly 13,000 California students are unable to complete their degrees but are still being held responsible for the student loan debt they incurred. These students have devoted time, energy, and resources in an effort to improve both their education and overall lives. Already victimized by the closure of the college, they should not be forced to forgo the credits they earned while also being subjected to tax debt. SB 150 helps students whose educational career is in limbo through no fault of their own to continue their education without being penalized financially. 2)Background: Founded in 1995, Corinthian's for-profit colleges once included over 100 campuses across the country, where over 100,000 students were enrolled. A bachelor's degree from a Corinthian college could cost as much as $75,000. The vast majority of the school's revenue came from federal student loans, but federal loans did not cover all of the tuition, so students often had to take out private loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleges that Corinthian kept tuition high in order to force students to borrow from the college at higher rates. The Corinthian loans came with origination fees of 6% and interest rates of around 15% as of 2011, much higher than the 3% and 7% interest on federal student loans. Corinthian was a long-time target for federal and state regulators, with a host of investigations and SB 150 Page 6 lawsuits charging falsified placement rates, deceptive marketing, and predatory recruiting, targeting the most vulnerable low-income students. Since July 2014, the Department of Education (DOE) has forced Corinthian to close or sell off its locations over concerns about its high-interest loans and misleading employment statistics. In February 2015, Corinthian announced that students would get $480 million in loan forgiveness under an agreement with federal regulators. Under the agreement, Corinthian would sell the majority of their campuses to the nonprofit ECMC Group, and students who attended ECMC Group campuses saw an immediate 40% reduction in the amount they owed on their private Corinthian loans. The DOE also fined Corinthian $30 million for 947 representations of placement rates, findings that Corinthian disputed. Corinthian did not sell its Heald College campuses, located mostly in California; they remained open until April 25, when they closed on one-day's notice, leaving 16,000 students unable to complete their degree. Under federal law, students have a right to debt relief if they were enrolled at the time their college closed or up to 120 days before the shutdown. The DOE extended that eligibility window for Heald students, allowing them to have their debts discharged if they withdrew any time after June 2014, when the DOE and Corinthian agreed to the sell the colleges. The DOE estimates that about 40,000 Heald students would be eligible for $544 million in debt relief if every student sought relief. In the past, only 6% of students whose colleges closed asked for their debt to be discharged. The DOE also estimates that if all 350,000 former Corinthian students over the last five years applied for and received the debt relief, that cost alone could be as much as $3.5 billion. SB 150 Page 7 3)Rationale of Taxing Forgiven Debt: The practice of taxing debt cancellation reflects sound tax policy because it recognizes the fact that an individual's net worth has increased by the cancellation of debt. According to Commissioner v. Glenshaw, the Court defined "income" as an accession to wealth that is clearly realized and over which the taxpayer has complete dominion. (Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 United States 426, 431 (1955).) When debt is cancelled, money that would have been used to pay that loan is now free to be used on whatever the taxpayer wants. Therefore, because certain assets have been freed, the taxpayer has experienced an accession to wealth. Additionally, under the rule of symmetry, a loan is not considered income to the borrower nor is it a deduction to the lender. A borrower's increased wealth when the loan is taken out is also offset by the obligation to pay the same amount. If the debt is cancelled, the symmetry is destroyed. The borrower is in a much better position after the debt is cancelled. Additionally, as noted by Debora A. Grier, Professor of Law of Cleveland State University, in her statement before the United States Senate Committee on Finance, without this tax rule, "the borrower will have received permanently tax-free cash in the year of the original receipt," i.e. the year in which the borrower received the loan. 4)Out of Conformity: As noted above, California generally conforms to federal law with respect to the taxability of student loan forgiveness. In general, state conformity with federal law promotes greater simplicity and eases administration of complex tax laws. If this bill were to become law, taxpayers would exclude from income the forgiven loan for state tax purposes, but include it for federal tax purposes, bringing California further out of compliance with federal law. SB 150 Page 8 Analysis Prepared by: Carlos Anguiano / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098 FN: 0002427