BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 659
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 4, 2009

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
                             Charles M. Calderon, Chair

                 AB 659 (Hayashi) - As Introduced:  February 25, 2009
           
           Majority vote.  Tax levy.  Fiscal committee.

           SUBJECT  :  Sales and use taxes:  consumer:  garment cleaner

           SUMMARY  :  Provides that specified garment cleaning businesses  
          shall be regarded as consumers, rather than retailers, of  
          tangible personal property (TPP) they sell, provided those sales  
          do not exceed 0.5% of their total gross receipts for the  
          preceding calendar year.  Specifically,  this bill :  

             1)   Designates any person who received no more than 0.5% of  
               his/her total gross receipts from the sale of TPP during  
               the preceding calendar year as a consumer, rather than a  
               retailer, with respect to those sales, provided both of the  
               following conditions are met:

             a)   That person operates one or more locations as a pickup  
               and delivery point for garment cleaning, or provides  
               spotting and pressing services on the premises but not  
               garment cleaning, or operates a garment cleaning or dyeing  
               plant on the premises; and,

             b)   75% or more of that person's total gross receipts  
               represent charges for garment cleaning or dyeing services.


             1)   Provides that sales tax shall not apply to sales of TPP  
               when those sales do not exceed the 0.5% limitation set  
               forth above.  However, if a person's TPP sales exceed 0.5%  
               of his/her total gross receipts during the preceding  
               calendar year, that person is a retailer of TPP and sales  
               tax shall apply to the gross receipts from those sales.  

             2)   Provides that, notwithstanding existing law, the state  
               shall not reimburse any local agency for sales and use tax  
               revenues lost as a result of this bill.










                                                                  AB 659
                                                                  Page  2

             3)   Takes immediate effect as a tax levy, but only becomes  
               operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter  
               beginning more than 90 days after its effective date.  

           EXISTING LAW  :

             1)   Imposes a sales tax on retailers for the privilege of  
               selling TPP, absent a specific exemption.  The tax is based  
               upon the gross receipts from sales of TPP in this state.  

             2)   Designates any person who received 20% or less of  
               his/her total gross receipts from the alteration of  
               garments during the preceding calendar year as a consumer  
               of property the person uses in altering new or used  
               clothing, provided both of the following conditions are  
               met:


             a)   That person operates one or more locations as a pickup  
               and delivery point for garment cleaning, or provides  
               spotting and pressing services on the premises but not  
               garment cleaning, or operates a garment cleaning or dyeing  
               plant on the premises; and,

             b)   75% or more of that person's total gross receipts  
               represent charges for garment cleaning or dyeing services.


           FISCAL EFFECT  :  The Board of Equalization (BOE) estimates that  
          this bill would reduce revenues by $12,257 per year.  

           COMMENTS  :  

             1)   The author states, "This bill is a fiscally responsible  
               measure.  Under current law, it would cost the state more  
               to enforce this tax than it would actually receive in  
               revenues.  AB 659 relieves small, family-run businesses of  
               the burden of tracking the number of collar stays and lint  
               brushes they sell.  And AB 659 relieves the state of the  
               administrative burden of tracking sales taxes on these  
               small, inexpensive items."

             2)   Proponents state, "The passage of AB 659 will  
               tremendously assist dry cleaners in that they will be  
               relieved of a potential financial and administrative  








                                                                  AB 659
                                                                  Page  3

               burden.  Without bill AB 659 dry cleaners are sure to fall  
               prey to an unrealistic economic policy or regulation.  It  
               would be ridiculous as well as burdensome for a sales tax  
               to be imposed on such sales transactions as lint rollers  
               and collar stays because the sale of such items composes a  
               tiny portion of profits.  As you may know, most of the time  
               those items are given to customers as promotional gifts.   
               Please understand that dry cleaners would prefer not to  
               sell or carry those items if it meant that they would have  
               to pay sales tax and track all transactions for tax  
               purposes."


             1)   BOE, which is sponsoring this bill, states:

             a)   "This bill is sponsored by the Board in order to relieve  
               dry cleaning establishments from the burdensome and  
               time-consuming task of maintaining records and filing sales  
               tax returns for negligible sales of tangible items.  Some  
               dry cleaners make incidental sales of items such as lint  
               brushes and collar stays simply as a matter of convenience  
               to customers with very little profit margin, and the burden  
               associated with complying with the tax law far outweighs  
               the economic benefit to California."

             b)   "The bill stems from the Board's education outreach  
               efforts wherein staff contacted operators of dry-cleaning  
               establishments to verify that the operators held a  
               California seller's permit when their clothes cleaning and  
               alteration operations were such that a permit was required.  
                In response, representatives from the industry expressed  
               their understanding that dry cleaners are not required to  
               hold seller's permits because they provide services and are  
               consumers of products they use in their clothes cleaning  
               and alteration activities.  Consequently, even though a  
               small percentage of these establishments make infrequent  
               sales of inexpensive items, such as lint brushes and collar  
               stays as a matter of convenience to customers with little  
               markup, some of the establishments were unaware of their  
               tax reporting obligations."


             c)   "The Legislature has recognized the uniqueness of dry  
               cleaning establishments.  Through enactment of a 1983  
               measure specifically directed towards dry cleaning  








                                                                  AB 659
                                                                  Page  4

               establishments and their charges for alterations (AB 1997,  
               Stats. 1983, Ch. 605), the Legislature recognized the need  
               for special tax treatment for this industry.  It recognized  
               that these are traditionally service establishments, rather  
               than retail outlets, and that most are small businesses  
               where sales tax compliance costs and necessary  
               recordkeeping are unduly burdensome.  Enactment of this  
               measure would further support this concept by simply  
               classifying these establishments as consumers of any  
               incidental sales of tangible property they make, provided  
               they do not exceed the limitations set forth in the bill.   
               As consumers, the dry cleaning establishments would be  
               required to pay tax on their purchases of any tangible  
               personal property sold, and the subsequent sales of these  
               items would be excludable from tax."


             1)   Committee Staff Comments:


             a)   This bill's purpose  :  BOE has sponsored this bill to  
               relieve garment cleaning businesses from the administrative  
               hassle of tracking incidental sales of TPP.  As long as a  
               business' TPP sales account for no more than 0.5% of its  
               total gross receipts, the business shall be considered a  
               consumer, and not a retailer, of that property.  BOE notes  
               that this bill would eliminate the need to register  
               hundreds of dry cleaning establishments that sell TPP, but  
               are currently not registered.  As such, BOE estimates that  
               workload savings would likely more than offset the $12,257  
               revenue loss estimated for this bill.


              b)   A precedent for future legislation?  :  Committee staff  
               question whether this bill might inadvertently establish a  
               precedent for future bills.  Indeed, there are a number of  
               businesses in California that receive revenues from both  
               taxable TPP sales and non-taxable services.  Should these  
               businesses also be considered consumers of TPP they sell,  
               if those sales are deemed "incidental" in nature?  As  
               California's economy continues to shift toward the  
               service-sector, might this lead to an erosion of the sales  
               tax base upon which this state relies for revenues?










                                                                 AB 659
                                                                  Page  5

              c)   What if TPP sales account for 0.6% of a business' gross  
               receipts?  :  This bill provides that, if a business' sales  
               of TPP exceed 0.5% of its total gross receipts, that  
               business "is a retailer of the [TPP] and sales tax shall  
               apply to the gross receipts from those sales."  Committee  
               staff understand this to mean that the business shall be  
               considered a retailer with respect to all sales of  
               incidental TPP and not just those above and beyond the 0.5%  
               threshold.   


             d)   Technical amendments  :  Committee staff recommend the  
               following technical amendments:


               i)     On page 2, line 3, replace "receives" with  
                 "received";

               ii)    On page 2, line 5, replace "receives" with  
                 "received";


               iii)   On page 2, line 11, delete "those sales of tangible  
                 personal property" and replace with "the tangible  
                 personal property so sold"; and,


               iv)    On page 3, line 4, replace "exceeds" with "exceed".   



           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Board of Equalization (sponsor)
          Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel
          Korean Drycleaners Association of Northern California (on its  
          own behalf and on behalf of 108 businesses)
          Korean Drycleaners-Laundry Association (on its own behalf and on  
          behalf of 235 businesses)
          San Diego Drycleaners Association (on behalf of 2 businesses) 

           Opposition 
           








                                                                  AB 659
                                                                  Page  6

          None on file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  M. David Ruff / REV. & TAX. / (916)  
          319-2098