Existing law imposes an annual minimum franchise tax, except as provided, on every corporation incorporated in this state, qualified to transact intrastate business in this state, or doing business in this state. Existing law exempts a corporation that incorporates or qualifies to do business in this state from the payment of the minimum franchise tax in its first taxable year. Existing law imposes an annual tax in an amount equal to the minimum franchise tax on every limited partnership, limited liability company and limited liability partnership doing business in this state. In addition, existing law requires every limited partnership that has filed a certificate with the Secretary of State and every foreign limited partnership that has registered with the Secretary of State, every limited liability company if the articles of organization have been accepted by, or a certificate of registration has been issued by, the Secretary of State, and every registered limited liability partnership and every foreign limited liability partnership that has registered with the Secretary of State, to pay an annual tax in an amount equal to the minimum franchise tax. This bill would reduce that minimum franchise or annual tax in the 2nd taxable year, for a new corporation, and the first taxable year for a new limited partnership, new limited liability partnership, and new limited liability company that is a small business, which is defined as a business entity with gross receipts of $5000 or less, as specified. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
Existing law authorizes various conservancies to acquire, manage, direct the management of, and conserve public lands in the state. This bill would establish the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Conservancy, to undertake various activities related to the San Joaquin Valley, as defined, and would prescribe the management, powers, and duties of the conservancy. The bill would create the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Conservancy Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund would be available, upon appropriation, for the purposes of the conservancy.
Existing law, the California High-Speed Rail Act, creates the High-Speed Rail Authority to develop and implement a high-speed rail system in the state. Existing law, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, general election, provides for the issuance of $9 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail purposes and $950 million for other related rail purposes. Article XVI of the California Constitution requires measures authorizing general obligation bonds to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds and further requires a bond act to be approved by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and a majority of the voters. This bill would provide that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, expect as specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for high-speed rail purposes for early improvement projects in the Phase I blended system. The bill, subject to the above exception, would require redirection of the unspent proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for other high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of these provisions, upon appropriation, for use in retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. The bill, subject to the above exception, would also require the net proceeds of other bonds subsequently issued and sold under the high-speed rail portion of the bond act to be made available, upon appropriation, to fund projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program, the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, and the state's freight plan. The bill would make no changes to the authorization under the bond act for issuance of $950 million for rail purposes other than high-speed rail. These provisions would become effective only upon approval by the voters at the next statewide general election. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board administers a water rights program pursuant to which the board grants permits and licenses to appropriate water. Existing law requires the board to allow the appropriation for beneficial purposes of unappropriated water under terms and conditions as in its judgment will best develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water sought to be appropriated. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change in these provisions.
The California Constitution prohibits a bill other than the Budget Bill from being heard or acted on by a committee or either house of the Legislature until the 31st day after the bill is introduced, unless the house dispenses with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, 34 of the membership concurring. This measure would add an additional exception to this 31-day waiting period by authorizing a committee to hear or act on a bill if the bill, in the form to be considered by the committee, has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 15 days. Existing provisions of the California Constitution prohibit either house of the Legislature from passing a bill until the bill with amendments has been printed and distributed to the Members. This measure would also prohibit either house of the Legislature from passing a bill until the bill, in the form to be voted on, has been made available to the public, in print and published on the Internet, for at least 72 hours preceding the vote. This requirement would not apply to specified urgency bills upon the submission by the Governor to the Legislature of a written statement that it is necessary to dispense with the requirement to address a state of emergency declared by the Governor.
This resolution would recognize April 21, 2014, though April 27, 2014, as California's Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Awareness Week.
The Planning and Zoning Law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, after specified general plan amendments have been made, and corresponding zoning ordinances adopted, from taking specified actions regarding property located within a flood hazard zone unless the city or county makes specified findings including, among other requirements, that the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will result in a specified level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in nonurbanized areas, as specified. That law defines adequate progress as meaning that, among other conditions being met, the total project scope, schedule, and cost of the completed flood protection system have been developed to meet the appropriate standard of protection and critical features of the flood protection system are under construction. This bill would revise the definition of adequate progress to include the critical features of the flood protection system being planned and designed or under construction and the completion of a levee safety plan for those flood protection systems that are a part of the State Plan of Flood Control. This bill would also require a local flood management agency's annual report to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board on the efforts in working toward completion of the flood protection system to describe the agency's compliance with specified conditions. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1) Article XVI of the California Constitution requires a general obligation bond act to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds, and further requires a bond act to be approved by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and by a majority of the voters. Article XVI authorizes the Legislature, at any time after the approval of a general obligation bond act by the voters, to reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction. Existing law, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as Proposition 1A at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, provides for the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related rail purposes. This bill, subject to voter approval, would amend the bond act to provide that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail and related rail purposes, and would also explicitly authorize the net proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold prior to the effective date of these provisions, upon appropriation, to be redirected from those high-speed rail purposes to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. The bill would direct the Secretary of State to submit these provisions to the voters on the ballot of the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. The bill would also provide that, until November 5, 2014, bond funds made available pursuant to the bond act shall not be expended for high-speed rail purposes, and no additional bonds shall be issued or sold pursuant to the bond act. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various deductions in computing the income that is subject to the tax imposed by that law. This bill would allow, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, as a deduction any income earned or received by a taxpayer that is attributable to a taxpayer's status as a partner in or sole proprietor of a qualified business, as defined, for the first 5 consecutive taxable years in which the business is a qualified business. Existing law generally imposes a minimum franchise tax of $800, except as provided, on every corporation incorporated in this state, qualified to transact intrastate business in this state, or doing business in this state, and an annual tax in an amount equal to the minimum franchise tax on every limited partnership, limited liability partnership, and limited liability company registered, qualified to transact business, or doing business in this state, as specified. Existing law requires every limited liability company subject to the annual tax to pay annually to this state a fee equal to specified amounts based upon total income from all sources reportable to this state. This bill would exempt from the minimum franchise tax every corporation incorporated in this state on or after January 1, 2015, for the first 5 consecutive taxable years during which the corporation does business within this state. This bill would also exempt from the annual tax every limited partnership, limited liability partnership, and limited liability company that files a specified form with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2015, as specified, for the first 5 consecutive taxable years during the time that entity does business within the state. This bill would additionally exempt a limited liability company that files a specified form with the Secretary of State on or after January 1, 2015, from the fee equal to specified amounts for the first 5 consecutive taxable years that the limited liability company does business within this state. The Corporation Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal income tax laws, exempts various types of organizations from state income taxes imposed by that law. This bill would exempt a corporation that incorporates under the laws of this state on or after January 1, 2015, for the first 5 consecutive taxable years that it does business within this state. Under existing law, a corporation that is a small business solely owned by a deployed member of the United States Armed Forces is not subject to the minimum franchise tax when the owner is deployed and the corporation meets certain requirements. Existing law makes these provisions inoperative for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. This bill would instead make these provisions inoperative for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2019. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which is permitted to adjudge certain children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, and prescribes various hearings and other procedures for these purposes. Existing law prohibits the court from terminating dependency jurisdiction over a nonminor who has reached 18 years of age until a hearing is conducted and the county welfare department has submitted a report verifying that specified information, documents, and services have been provided to the child. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to, among other things, require the county welfare department to submit reports at the first regularly scheduled hearing after the child has attained 16 years of age and at the hearing immediately prior to the child attaining 18 years of age, verifying that the county has provided certain of the above-described information, documents, and services to the child. By increasing the reporting duties of county welfare departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.