BILL ANALYSIS
SB 392
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 9, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 392 (Florez) - As Amended: June 24, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 36-0
SUBJECT : Limited Liability Companies: Licensed Contractors
KEY ISSUES :
1)SHOULD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES BE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN A
CONTRACTORS LICENSE DESPITE THE LONGSTANDING GENERAL RULE
PROHIBITING LLCs FROM ENGAGING IN LICENSED ACTIVITIES?
2)IF LLCs SHOULD BE GRANTED CONTRACTORS LICENSES, DOES THIS BILL
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS AND
EMPLOYEES?
3)IF THERE IS NOT YET AGREEMENT OR CERTAINTY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
FOR UNSATISFIED WAGE OR OTHER CLAIMS, IS THERE A CRITICAL
REASON WHY THIS BILL SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill would allow a limited liability company (LLC) to be
licensed as a construction contractor, departing from the
general rule that LLCs cannot engage in "professional services"
under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company (LLC Act), a
principle that has been in place since the LLC Act was
originally codified in light of the fact that LLCs immunize the
owners of the business from personal liability. Supporters
state that the existing prohibition against awarding contractors
licenses to LLCs is archaic and an impediment to attracting
established nationwide businesses to do business in the state.
Supporters argue that the LLC form of business has needed
flexibility for distribution of profits and losses that make it
a more desirable form of business, which benefits commerce with
no foreseeable detriment. Opponents represent the building and
construction trades and other labor organizations. They contend
that they have had difficulty collecting unpaid wages because of
SB 392
Page 2
a record-breaking downturn in the construction industry, and
they fear that if the bill were enacted many construction
companies would make use of it in order to avoid personal
liability by the owners of the business, leaving workers without
recourse. Although the bill offers some bonding requirements,
opponents contend the levels are woefully inadequate to meet
potential needs for large construction companies employing a
significant number of workers and obligated to pay prevailing
wages on large projects.
SUMMARY : Notwithstanding the prohibition under the LLC Act
against a limited liability company providing licensed services,
authorizes the State Contractors License Board to issue a
contractors license to a limited liability company if the LLC
meets other requirements such as bonding, solvency, and
liability insurance. Specifically, this bill :
1)Includes LLC within the definition of "person" for the
purposes of the Contractors State License Law (Contractors
Law).
2)Defines "qualifying person," "qualifying individual," or
"qualifier" as an individual who qualifies for a contractor's
license.
3)Authorizes the issuance of a contractor's license to a LLC,
and adds license requirements that mirror those of a
corporation.
4)Requires a LLC to provide security for claims by obtaining
liability insurance with a total aggregate limit of $1 million
for a limited liability company that employs five or fewer
licensed persons, and an additional $100,000 of insurance for
each additional person up to $5 million dollars in any one
designated period for a LLC that employs more than five
licensees rendering professional services on behalf of the
company. Defines "designated period" to mean a policy year or
period less than 12 months. A certification of coverage shall
be submitted to the commissioner by the licensee or applicant,
and signed by an authorized agent or employee of the insurer.
5)Requires that if a LLC license is suspended, each person
within the company identified shall be personally liable up to
$1 million for damages against third parties in connection
with the company's performance during the period of
SB 392
Page 3
suspension, for any act or contract where a license is
required.
6)Requires that if a LLC's contractor license has been suspended
or revoked as a result of disciplinary action, or a person who
was a qualifying individual for a licensee at any time during
which cause for disciplinary action occurred resulting in
suspension or revocation of the licensee's license, the CSLB
shall require as a condition precedent to the issuance,
reissuance, renewal, or restoration of a license to the
applicant, or to the approval of an application to change
officers of a corporation or a limited liability company, or
removal of suspension, or to the continued valid use of a
license which has been suspended or revoked, but which
suspension or revocation has been stayed, that the applicant
or licensee file or have on file a contractor's bond in a sum
to be fixed by the registrar based upon the seriousness of the
violation, but which sum shall not be less than fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) nor more than 10 times the amount
required by Section 7071.6.
7)Requires that the qualifying individual for a LLC shall not be
required to file or have on file a qualifying individual's
bond if he or she owns at least a 10% interest in the LLC and
certifies this fact on a form prescribed by the registrar.
8)Requires a LLC to include information of the liability
insurance or security it maintains at a financial institution
for change orders and service and repair contracts.
9)Makes this Act on January 1 of the year following the
effective date of the annual budget bill in which the
Contractors' State License Board receives an appropriation for
sufficient resources to implement this act and the
Contractors' State License Board notifies the Secretary of
State and Legislative Council that there is such an
appropriation.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Act of 1994, prohibits domestic and foreign limited liability
companies from rendering professional services in California.
(Corp. Code Sec. 17375.)
SB 392
Page 4
2)Defines "professional services" as "any type of professional
services which may be lawfully rendered only pursuant to a
license, certification, or registration authorized by the
Business and Professions Code, the Chiropractic Act, or the
Osteopathic Act." (Corp. Code Sec. 13401(a).)
3)Provides for the licensure and regulation of contractors by
the Contractors State License Board (CSLB). (Bus. & Prof.
Code section 7025 et seq.)
4)Defines "person" for the purpose of the Contractors Law to
include an individual, a firm, co-partnership, corporation,
association or other organization, and prohibits any
unlicensed person from engaging in business or acting as a
contractor. (Id.)
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill is needed for the
following reasons:
The existing contractors' license law is archaic as most
states allow an LLC to hold a contractor's license -
California law is an impediment to established nationwide
businesses doing business in the state. The LLC form of
business has needed flexibility for distribution of profits
and losses separate from control and ownership which
benefits commerce with no foreseeable detriment.
Fourteen years after passage of the LLC Act, LLCs comprise
an indelible part of the business landscape in California
and throughout the United States. This bill is necessary so
that LLCs may be utilized in the construction industry just
as they are in countless other industries throughout
California. Notably, this is already the case in other
States. Of the 29 States that license or regulate
contractors, only California imposes a complete ban on
operating as an LLC.
LLCs are a desired entity for construction companies, as
they are with many other industries, primarily because LLCs
provide the flexibility to distribute profits and losses to
owners without double taxation, in a manner similar to
corporations electing "S" status under the Internal Revenue
Code, but without the limited shareholder qualifications,
i.e. "S" corporation shareholders must be individuals with
very limited exceptions and the number of shareholders is
SB 392
Page 5
limited to 100. This flexibility as to the identity of
shareholders is coveted for achieving estate planning
objectives. Similarly, an "S" corporation's largest
shareholders receive the largest share of profits. The LLC
for of business allows the owners to dictate how the
profits are split and taxed without dictation by the
percentage ownership.
This improved estate planning and profit sharing
flexibility will have no negative impact on consumers of
construction services in California. An LLC provides
liability protection for the personal assets of owners
equivalent to, but not more than, that afforded
corporations.
Limited Liability Companies Are Believed To Offer Businesses
Significantly More Desirable Tax And Nontax Benefits Compared To
Other Forms, With Unknown Revenue Implications For The State.
Generally, a limited liability company is a legal entity formed
under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act that
allows one or more owners to conduct a business without any
owner having personal liability for the obligations of the
business. While members of an LLC are commonly thought to be
individuals, they may also be corporations or other business
entities.
The salient nontax characteristics of a limited liability
company (LLC) are limited liability for its owners (as in a
corporation) and freedom to structure management rights and
financial interests in the entity in virtually any configuration
the parties wish (as in a partnership). Unlike a corporation,
an LLC can have different classes of ownership and may allocate
income, gains, losses, and other items disproportionately among
owners without affecting the LLC's pass-through tax treatment.
There are also important tax consequences. In regular
corporations, both the entity and the shareholders are taxed on
the increased value of the property when the property is sold or
the corporation is liquidated. LLCs avoid this tax. In
addition, because the LLC usually elects to be treated as a
partnership for income tax purposes, so that the income, gains,
losses, deductions, and credits of the LLC generally will flow
through to its members for reporting on their tax returns, the
distribution depending on the terms of the LLC agreement, not
necessarily the ownership interest of the individual members.
SB 392
Page 6
Combined with the ability of LLCs to allocate income, gains,
losses, and other items disproportionately among owners, LLCs
may be arranged in such a way as to create significantly more
desirable tax treatment than corporations or other forms of
business organization.
Naturally, more favorable tax consequences for the owners may
translate into less tax revenue for the state. The Revenue and
Taxation Committee advises that, to deal with these revenue
consequences, existing law requires California LLCs to file tax
returns and pay an $800 annual LLC tax, similar to the minimum
tax paid by "S" corporations. In addition to the LLC tax,
California LLCs must also pay an LLC fee between $900 and
$11,790 based on its total income from all sources derived or
attributable to this state. It is understood that these fees
are not as progressive as the corporate or personal tax rates.
However, this bill has not been referred to the Revenue and
Taxation Committee and it is unknown whether these LLC fees
would be a net loss or gain for state revenues.
These more desirable tax and nontax characteristics, and the
ease by which LLCs can be created, lead the bill's opponents to
believe that if construction companies are permitted to organize
as LLCs a large number will do so who are not now willing or
able to incorporate in order to shield themselves from personal
liability, creating new obstacles to recovery of wages and
benefits.
Until the creation of LLCs in 1994, the limited partnership and
the subchapter S corporation were the primary forms of business
entity used to achieve the tax status and limited liability
features now offered by the LLC.
A limited partnership allows pass-through tax treatment,
flexibility in financial structuring, and limited liability for
the partners (as long as they do not take part in the control of
the business), but requires one person (the general partner) to
be fully liable for the obligations of the business. Unlike a
limited partnership, no LLC member need be personally liable for
the company's obligations, and yet each member is permitted to
manage the company and to take part in the control of the
business without losing the member's limited liability. (Corp.
Code Secs. 17101, 17150.)
Although an S corporation allows pass-through tax treatment and
SB 392
Page 7
limited liability for all owners, S corporation status limits
the parties' flexibility in structuring their financial
arrangements because of the requirements that the corporation
have no more than one class of stock and that items of income,
gain, loss, deduction, or credit be distributed among
shareholders on a pro rata basis. Furthermore, only
individuals, estates, certain types of trusts, and certain
tax-exempt organizations are permitted to be S corporation
shareholders, and an S corporation will lose its pass-through
tax treatment if an ineligible entity becomes a shareholder.
Any person, as well as corporations, can be a member of an LLC
(thus sidestepping the restrictions on shareholders in the case
of an S corporation).
General Prohibition Against Engaging In Licensed Activities As
An LLC. While LLCs may generally engage in any lawful business
activity (except banking, insurance, or trust company
operations), the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act
prohibits a foreign or domestic limited liability company from
rendering professional services in this state unless expressly
authorized under applicable provisions of law. "Professional
services" are those services for which a license, certification,
or registration is required under the Business and Professions
Code, the Chiropractic Act, or the Osteopathic Act. (Corp. Code
Sec. 17375.)
The rationale for the Beverly-Killea LLC Act's exclusion of
professional services from the business that an LLC may
undertake has been that service providers who harm others by
their misconduct, incompetence, or negligence should not be able
to limit their liability by operating as an LLC and thus
potentially become judgment proof.
In 2004, the Attorney General (AG) issued an opinion, in
response to a request from the Secretary of State, on the
question of whether a business that provides services requiring
a license, certification, or registration pursuant to the
Business and Professions Code may conduct its business as a
limited liability company. The AG opinion concluded that "a
business that provides services requiring a license,
certification, or registration pursuant to the Business and
Professions Code may conduct its activities as a limited
liability company if the services rendered require only a
nonprofessional, occupational license." (Op. No. 04-103, 87
Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 109 (July 23, 2004).)
SB 392
Page 8
The AG opinion is clear that an LLC is not permitted to render
professional services, while an LLC would be permitted to
perform "nonprofessional occupational services" without
violating the Beverly-Killea LLC Act. However, the opinion also
recognized that for some purposes, the term "professional
services" has been broadly construed to include more than the
traditionally considered "learned" professions such as medicine,
law, or engineering, but includes such skilled services such as
plumbing. (Amex Assurance Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 1246, 1252; Hollingsworth v. Commercial Union Ins.
Co. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 800, 806.)
In 1995, SB 513 (Calderon, Ch. 679, Stats. 1995) authorized the
establishment of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) for
licensed attorneys and licensed accountants, provided the LLP
purchased a liability insurance policy or maintained bank
deposits of at least $100,000 per limited liability partner (or
an aggregate of not less than $500,000 for fewer than five
partners and not more than $5 million for all others). Only
partnerships with a net worth of $10 million or more were
allowed to become LLPs. In 1998, the statute allowing
professional LLPs (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 16956) was extended to
architects, under the same conditions as accountants and
attorneys, for a trial period of ten years (AB 469, Cardoza, Ch.
504, Stats. 1998). In 2006, the repeal date for architects was
extended to 2012 and the liability coverage requirement was
increased to $1,000,000 for partnerships of five or fewer
licensees, and an additional $100,000 per additional licensee up
to a maximum of $5,000,000. (AB 2914, Leno, Ch. 426, Stats.
2006.) In 2007, SB 414 (Corbett, Ch. 80, Stats. 2007) updated
the liability coverage requirement for accountants and attorneys
to that applicable to architects. To date, only attorneys,
accountants, and architects are permitted to operate as LLPs
under the conditions specified for liability coverage.
Prior Legislative Proposals To Authorize LLCs To Engage In
Licensed Activities. This bill would authorize the State
Contractors' License Board to issue to a limited liability
company (LLC) a license to provide contactor services, if the
LLC meets the liability coverage requirements provided in the
bill (and meets other licensing requirements). Last year, SB
1337 (Correa) would have done the same, but without requiring
the LLC to provide any additional liability coverage in the
event of damages to a consumer. That bill died in the Senate
SB 392
Page 9
Judiciary Committee.
According to the author, there was at least one prior effort
like SB 392. In the 1995-1996 session AB 2401 (Miller), sought
to allow contractors to operate as limited liability companies.
That bill was later broadened to include several other
industries and ultimately died in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
Last year, SB 1225 (Harman, Ch. 114, Stats. 2008) allowed a
private cemetery that is an LLC to operate as a licensed
cemetery authority to own the cemetery and to provide services
by professionals licensed under the Business & Professions Code.
SB 1225, however, prohibited licensees of professional services
rendered in connection with the operations of a cemetery
authority from having any ownership interest in the LLC.
If SB 392 is enacted, contractors would be the first of 54
professional and semi-professional licensee groups that, until
now, could not be an LLC providing those services.
Current Bonding Requirements. Under this bill, LLCs wishing to
obtain a contractor's license would be subject to the same
bonding requirement as existing licensees. Individual licensees
are required to maintain a contractor's bond in the sum of
$12,500, at least $7,500 of which is dedicated for the benefit
of a homeowner with a homeowner improvement contract for his or
her personal family home, and whose home was damaged as a result
of a violation. The aggregate liability of a surety on a claim
for wages and fringe benefits brought against either bond may
not exceed $4,000. If any a bond required by this article is
insufficient to pay all claims in full, the sum of the bond
shall be distributed to all claimants in proportion to the
amount of their respective claims.
In addition, a corporate licensee and persons other than a sole
proprietor, general partner, or a joint venture licensee are
required to post a further bond in the amount of $12,500, of
which $7,500 is reserved for the damaged homeowner as described
above, and the rest available to other beneficiaries named above
(employee, other persons). This bond may be waived if the
qualifying individual owns 10% or more of the corporation's
stock. Likewise under this bill a LLC is not required to file
or have on file this bond if he or she owns at least a
10-percent membership interest in the limited liability company.
SB 392
Page 10
In addition to these bonds, the author proposes a new "wage
bond" for LLCs, as discussed below.
Liability Insurance Required. This bill requires a LLC to
provide security for claims by obtaining liability insurance
with a total aggregate limit of $1 million for a limited
liability company that employs five or fewer licensed persons,
and an additional $100,000 of insurance for each additional
person up to $5 million dollars in any one designated period for
a LLC that employs more than five licensees rendering
professional services on behalf of the company. A "designated
period" means a policy year or period less than 12 months.
Modest Net Worth Requirement. The bill does not propose to
change the existing rule that individuals seeking a contractor's
license show evidence of minimal solvency - i.e., operating
capital of greater than $2,500. By contrast, where other
entities where individuals are shielded from personal liability
are permitted to engage in licensed activities, net worth
requirements are substantially higher.
The practice with respect to corporations generally is based on
transparency - publicly traded companies must make certain
filing statements that contain basic information about corporate
assets to which a consumer or employee could obtain access
before transacting business or agreeing to perform labor. There
are no such transparency or access obligations with respect to
LLCs.
For businesses other than corporations, there are minimum net
worth requirements in many cases where the business is engaged
in a licensed activity. Thus, current law authorizes attorneys,
accountants, and architects to organize themselves as LLPs and
to provide professional services, so long as the LLP maintains a
net worth of at least $10 million, and obtains liability
insurance coverage or maintains bank deposits of $1 million for
partnerships of five or fewer licensees and an additional
$100,000 for each additional licensee up to a maximum of $5
million for all others. These figures were updated last year by
SB 414 (Corbett). Limited liability partnerships are required
to register with the Secretary of State, and LLP partners are
only personally liable for those torts in which they personally
participated and are not jointly and severally liable for any
other torts or debts of the partnership.
SB 392
Page 11
Similarly, under the Financial Code an escrow agent shall
maintain at all times a tangible net worth of fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000), including liquid assets of at least
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in excess of current
liabilities; licensed finance lenders and brokers must maintain
a net worth of at least twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000);
to obtain a license to make deferred deposit transactions, an
applicant must have a net worth of at least twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000); residential mortgage lenders shall maintain a
minimum tangible net worth at all times of two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000). Business and industrial
development corporations moreover must demonstrate net worth of
at least $1.5 million to obtain a license from the Commissioner
of Financial Institutions. Under the Insurance Code, each
broker-agent of fire and casualty insurance shall have a net
worth of at least five million dollars ($5,000,000).
Concern Regarding Potential To Pierce Veil Of LLCs As With
Corporations. Opponents are concerned that it is uncertain
whether or in what circumstances it may be possible for an
aggrieved person to recover against the members of an LLC as
they now can against a corporation under the doctrine known as
"piercing the corporate veil." Cases involving LLC
veil-piercing have just recently reached the higher courts of
other states that have had LLC statutes longer than California.
Although some courts have suggested that veil-piercing liability
may be the same for members of LLC's as for shareholders in a
corporation (See, e.g., Kaycee Land and Livestock v. Flahive,
2002 WY 73 (Wyo.2002)) especially if there was an inadequate
capitalization and representations that other entities would be
responsible for the LLC's debt, there are other courts that
would provide more protection for the LLC (See Bonner v. Brunson
(2003) 262 Ga.App.521, 585 S.E.2d 917, cert. denied, (Jan. 12,
2004)(veil of an LLC should not be pierced absent an "abuse" of
the LLC). Some states have LLC statutes that expressly provide
for application of the corporate veil-piercing standard to LLCs,
e.g., Colorado, Georgia, and Montana.
Under the Beverly-Killea LLC Act, no person who is a manager or
officer or both a manager and officer of an LLC is personally
liable for any debts, judgments, or obligations of the LLC. A
manager may however agree to be personally liable if this is set
out in the LLC's articles of organization or other writing.
(Corp. Code Sec. 17158.) As to the personal liability of other
SB 392
Page 12
members of the LLC, the LLC Act is silent; thus, it is not clear
that it would be easy to reach assets of LLC owners, who benefit
from the tax advantages as well as the shield provided to their
personal assets in the course of managing their business with
much less formalities than a corporation, to remedy wrongs done
to consumers. SB 392 would remove this uncertainty when the
LLC's license has been suspended, by making the members liable
for up to $1,000,000 in damages during that period (assuming the
members had the assets to meet that liability), but not
otherwise.
Is The Proposed Wage Bond Adequate To Meet Potential Needs? In
response to opposition concerns (noted below), the author
proposes to require a "wage and welfare" bond in the amount of
$25,000 for an LLC operating under a contractors license.
According to the sponsor, this proposal is based on an existing
requirement for car wash companies under Labor Code 2055(b).
This proposed amendment has apparently been shared with the
opposition, who indicate that is inadequate to address their
concerns because, they argue, wage and benefit claims may far
exceed the amount of the proposed bond. By way of comparison,
the State Building and Construction Trades Council comments that
federal law requires union officials with potential financial
responsibilities to post a much higher fidelity bond of $500,000
or ten percent of the total amount of funds handled, pursuant to
29 USC section 502.
The Committee may wish to explore with the author whether this
proposed $25,000 wage bond is sufficient to meet the realistic
needs of all or most construction contractors. It is not known
whether experience with the $25,000 bond has proved to be
adequate to meet the needs in the car wash industry. Moreover,
the construction industry may well be sufficiently different in
size, complexity, wages, pensions, health and other benefits
that a significantly larger bond may be more appropriate. There
is also the question whether a flat bond requirement is
appropriate in light of the variation in size among construction
licensees who may organize as LLCs, ranging from individuals who
are now employed as sole proprietors engaged in a few small
projects, to large corporations with hundreds of workers in
multiple large public works projects.
Setting the bond at one amount for all these varying companies
has some precedent - e.g., SB 43 (Alquist) proposes that
specified design-build contracts may be required to provide a
SB 392
Page 13
payment bond of not less than one-half of the contract price or
three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000), whichever is less.
But such an approach could be overly burdensome for small
contractors or insufficiently protective in the case of large
companies. A scaled approach based on the size and extent of
potential wage and benefit claims may therefore be more
appropriate. This is the approach taken with respect to the
insurance obligation in the bill, for example, which is scaled
based on the number of LLC members. However, the number of LLC
members may be an unduly crude mechanism for assessing potential
wage claim exposure because a large construction company
organized as an LLC may have only a few owners. (Indeed, the
number of LLC members would appear to be a very rough measure
for liability insurance purposes as well; unlike lawyers and
accountants whose capacity to injure others is related to the
number of practicing members, it would appear that the number of
LLC members may be largely unrelated to the scope of potential
injury a construction LLC may cause.) It would therefore appear
more appropriate to develop a more sophisticated metric for
relating potential exposure to bonding level.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of labor organizations in
the building trades opposes the bill, arguing:
Presently, contractor licenses can be issued to both
corporations and partnerships and it would seem logical to
provide LLCs with the same ability. However, partners are
held personally liable for partnership debts and there is a
well-established body of law that allows plaintiffs to
"pierce the veil" of a corporation to hold the owner of the
company personally liable for debts, including back wages,
if the corporation is under the owner's management or was
inadequately capitalized. There is no such body of law
for LLCs that protects workers. Thus, there is a risk
that allowing LLCs to receive contractors' licenses will
enable individuals, partnerships and corporations to form
LLCs as a stronger protection against liability.
Contractors that currently function as sole proprietorships
or ordinary partnerships may be particularly likely to
become LLCs as this bill would provide the incentive to
form an LLC to obtain protection from personal liability
while retaining the same tax treatment. In addition, even
if LLCs were required to buy liability insurance similar to
LLPs, the liability insurance would only cover a worker's
SB 392
Page 14
injury by a contractors' negligence. The insurance would
not cover ordinary debt run up by the LLC, such as for back
wages and benefits.
To cover the back wages to employees there would need to be
a bonding requirement sufficient to cover the wages.
Currently, some of the contractors' bonds are not that high
compared with the potential liability for back wages and we
routinely see situations in which small contractors declare
bankruptcy owing money. We are also concerned that
expanding the types of legal entities that can hold
contractors' licenses will make it easier for contractors
to change their form in order to make it harder to hold
companies responsible for their safety records or to
organize them. While this is already possible through the
creation of a new corporation, it would be more of a burden
to create a new corporation vs. an LLC in part because the
corporation has to pay taxes at the corporate level,
whereas the LLC does not.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated General Contractors of California (Sponsor)
Associated General Contractors of San Diego (Sponsor)
Associated Builders and Contractors
California Fence Contractors Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
Engineering and Utility Contractors Association
Engineering Contractors Association
Flasher/Barricade Association
Golden State Builders Exchanges
Marin Builders Association
Opposition
California Labor Federation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California State Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
SB 392
Page 15
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334