BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 782
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
Raul Bocanegra, Chair
SB 782 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: January 17, 2014
Majority vote. Fiscal committee.
SENATE VOTE : 33-0
SUBJECT : Personal Income Tax Law: voluntary contributions:
California Sexual Violence Victim Services Fund
SUMMARY : Reauthorizes the addition of the California Sexual
Violence Victim Services Fund (Fund) checkoff to the personal
income tax (PIT) return upon the removal of another voluntary
contribution fund (VCF) from the return. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Establishes the Fund in the State Treasury.
2)Allows a deduction for any contribution made to the Fund.
3)Provides that all money transferred to the Fund, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, shall be allocated to the:
a) Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and the Controller for
reimbursement of all costs incurred in administering the
VCF; and,
b) Office of Emergency Services (OES) for allocation to the
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) for
the awarding of grants to support CALCASA rape crisis
center programs for victims of rape and sexual assault,
upon the OES' receipt of a plan from CALCASA explaining how
the contributions received will be utilized.
4)Requires the OES to:
a) Ensure oversight of the allocation; and,
b) Suspend the allocation of money to CALCASA if CALCASA
SB 782
Page 2
does not submit a plan for the use of contributions as
required, or if CALCASA is not in compliance with its
obligations under the Supervision of Trustees and
Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act (Government Code
Section 12580 et seq.).
5)Provides that if the allocation of money is suspended for
three or more years, the OES may revoke CALCASA's designation
as the recipient of contributions and shall designate a new
organization exempt from federal income tax under Internal
Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) for the purpose of awarding
grants to support rape crisis center programs.
6)Prohibits the OES from using funds for its administrative
costs.
7)Provides for the Fund provisions' automatic expiration on
either January 1 of the fifth taxable year following the
Fund's first appearance on the PIT return or on January 1 of
an earlier year, if the FTB estimates that the annual
contribution amount will be less than $250,000, or an adjusted
amount for subsequent years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows taxpayers to contribute to one or more of 20 VCFs on
the 2013 PIT return.
2)Provides a specific sunset date for each VCF, except for the
California Seniors Special Fund and the State Parks Protection
Fund.
3)Requires each VCF to meet an annual minimum contribution
amount to remain in effect, except for the California
Firefighters' Memorial Fund, the California Peace Officer
Memorial Foundation Fund, and the California Seniors Special
Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT : The FTB estimates that this bill will reduce
General Fund revenues by $10,000 annually beginning in fiscal
year (FY) 2015-16.
COMMENTS :
1)The author has provided the following statement in support of
SB 782
Page 3
this bill:
SB 782 establishes the California Sexual Violence Victim
Services Fund to allow taxpayers to voluntarily designate
contributions to the fund on their tax returns. These
voluntary contributions will be used to further services
that California's Rape Crisis Centers provide for sexual
assault victims. Including this fund on the state tax
forms will increase awareness of the significance of rape
and sexual assault programs as well as enhance charitable
giving for these essential programs.
2)Proponents of this bill note the following:
It is critical that we do all that we can to provide help
and support to victims of sexual violence in our state.
This bill will create much needed funding for this cause.
Creating this tax check-off provides a highly efficient way
of giving back to those who are most in need in our
communities. Furthermore, given that virtually all
California workers [fill] out an income tax return, SB 782
will help to create more public awareness of the issue of
sexual violence.
3)Committee Staff Comments:
a) What would this bill do ? This bill reestablishes the
Fund as a VCF on the PIT return. This bill is designed to
support the services that California's rape crisis centers
provide for victims of rape or sexual assault.
Specifically, Fund moneys would be allocated to the OES for
distribution to CALCASA. CALCASA, in turn, would use Fund
moneys to award grants "to support CALCASA rape crisis
center programs for victims of rape and sexual assault . .
. ."
b) CALCASA : Originally founded in 1980 as the California
State Coalition of Rape Crisis Centers, CALCASA was
established by rape crisis centers from across California
to advocate for survivors of sexual violence. CALCASA has
offices in both Sacramento and Pasadena and is the only
professional organization dedicated to supporting the work
of rape crisis centers, which operate independently
throughout the state. CALCASA is committed to ending
SB 782
Page 4
sexual violence through a multifaceted approach that draws
upon prevention, intervention, education, research, and
public policy advocacy. CALCASA notes that, in FY 2011-12,
California's rape crisis centers served 31,790 survivors of
sexual violence. During the same time period, 134,322
people received community education about sexual assault.
c) Does this seem familiar ? A VCF with the same name first
appeared on the 2005 return and last appeared on the 2006
return. Moneys contributed to the original Fund were first
distributed to the Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury
Control Branch of the State Department of Health Services.
As with the present bill, moneys were then allocated to
CALCASA for the awarding of grants to support CALCASA rape
crisis center programs.
Unfortunately, the Fund failed to meet its minimum
contribution threshold of $250,000 in calendar year 2007.
Thus, by operation of law, the provisions establishing the
original Fund were repealed. The Fund generated $199,900
in 2006 and $184,980 in 2007.
d) How exactly will Fund contributions be used ? As noted
above, Fund moneys would be allocated to CALCASA for the
awarding of grants "to support CALCASA rape crisis center
programs for victims of rape and sexual assault . . . ."
While past practice may be instructive, it is not readily
apparent based on the statutory text how grants would
actually be awarded under this bill. Would grants be
awarded to independently operated rape crisis centers
providing "CALCASA" programs? If so, what criteria would
CALCASA use to determine which rape crisis centers receive
grant awards? While Committee staff is sensitive to the
need for administrative flexibility, the author may wish to
provide a greater degree of clarity on these issues.
e) Planning ahead : This bill provides that Fund moneys
shall be allocated to CALCASA upon the OES receiving a
CALCASA "plan" explaining how the contributions will be
utilized. Moreover, the OES is directed to suspend the
allocation of money to CALCASA if CALCASA does not submit
such a plan. This language raises certain questions.
Namely, what exactly must this plan include and what
purpose is it designed to achieve? Must CALCASA submit a
plan to the OES annually? Will this plan be made public on
SB 782
Page 5
OES' Web site? Is it intended to hold CALCASA accountable
to some identifiable objectives? At present, it would seem
that CALCASA could satisfy this requirement by submitting
nearly anything it labels as a plan. The Committee may
wish to consider whether this requirement serves a useful
purpose. If so, it might be beneficial to adopt amendments
providing a greater degree of specificity regarding the
scope and purpose of this planning requirement.
f) The ongoing battle between "may" and "shall" : This bill
specifies that if the allocation of money to CALCASA is
suspended for three or more years, the OES may revoke
CALCASA's designation as the recipient of contributions.
This language would appear to vest the OES with complete
discretion in making this decision. This bill's language,
however, further provides that OES shall designate a new
nonprofit organization to award grants to support rape
crisis center programs. The word "shall" introduces a
certain degree of ambiguity. Does this term inadvertently
conflict with the permissive language that precedes it or
does the mandatory directive to designate a new nonprofit
only apply once the OES elects to revoke CALCASA's
designation? The author may wish to amend this language to
make the intent perfectly clear.
g) Oversight and administration : This bill charges the OES
with both allocating funds to CALCASA and ensuring
"oversight of the allocation" made pursuant to this bill.
The purpose of this oversight provision, however, is not
entirely clear to Committee staff. Is this language
directing the OES to oversee its own allocation to CALCASA,
or is it designed to ensure oversight of the CALCASA grant
process? Moreover, this bill prevents the OES from using
any Fund moneys to cover its own administrative costs,
while placing no such restrictions on CALCASA itself. Is
this the author's intent?
h) So many causes, so little space : There are countless
worthy causes that would benefit from the inclusion of a
new VCF on the state's PIT return. At the same time, space
on the return is limited. It could be argued that the
current system for adding VCFs to the return is inherently
subjective and essentially rewards causes that are able to
convince the Legislature to include their fund on the
return.
SB 782
Page 6
In addition, this Committee's VCF policy provides, "All
proponents seeking authorization for a new or reauthorized
checkoff shall provide information justifying their
expectation that the checkoff will meet its contribution
minimum." Given that an identically named VCF failed to
meet its minimum contribution threshold only a few years
ago, it is an open question whether this Fund will fare any
better. Moreover, Committee staff questions the precedent
of simply re-establishing past VCFs when they fail to
garner sufficient support to remain on the PIT form.
i) Legislative history : The original Fund was added by AB
190 (McLeod), Chapter 160, Statutes of 2005. Among its
numerous provisions, AB 1844 (Fletcher), Chapter 219,
Statutes of 2010, removed the Fund's repeal date.
Nevertheless, the original Fund last appeared on the 2006
return because contributions failed to meet the $250,000
minimum contribution threshold.
j) Suggested technical amendments :
i) On page 4, in line 4, strike "award" and insert
"awarding";
ii) On page 4, in line 6, strike "Services" and insert
"Services'"; and,
iii) On page 4, in line 7, strike "explaining" and insert
"specifying".
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
State Board of Equalization Member Jerome E. Horton
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : M. David Ruff / REV. & TAX. / (916)
319-2098
SB 782
Page 7