This measure would, on June 23, 2015, commemorate the 43rd anniversary of the enactment of Title IX, and would urge Californians to continue to work together to achieve the goals set by Title IX, as specified.
This measure would designate Sunday, June 7, 2015, as California Cancer Survivors Day, to coincide with National Cancer Survivors Day.
This measure would recognize June 2015 as Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month, and June 21, 2015, as The Longest Day in California, and would urge all residents to wear purple on this day to help spread global awareness of the Alzheimer's Association's vision of imagining a world without Alzheimer's disease.
This measure would request the Congress of the United States of America to further amend the GI Bill of Rights to make benefits available to veterans for use as startup capital in the establishment of first businesses.
This measure would proclaim June 2015 as California-Grown Flower Month to recognize and honor the men and women of the California-grown flower industry for their dedication and productivity.
Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products to minors. Existing law permits enforcing agencies to assess various civil penalties for violations of the STAKE Act. Existing law makes it a crime to furnish tobacco products to minors. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing an electronic cigarette to minors, and makes a violation punishable as an infraction. This bill would define the term "smoking" for purposes of the STAKE Act. The bill would also change the STAKE Act's definition of tobacco products to include electronic devices, such as electronic cigarettes, that deliver nicotine or other vaporized liquids, and make furnishing such a tobacco product to a minor a misdemeanor. Existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law, imposes a tax on the distribution of cigarettes and tobacco products at specified rates, and defines tobacco products for those purposes. Existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, requires the State Board of Equalization to administer a statewide program to license manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products, as defined. Under existing law, a violation of this act is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a retailer to have in place and maintain a license to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products, as defined, and prescribes procedures for the issuance of and grounds for revocation or suspension of a license. Existing law requires a retailer who seeks to obtain a license to engage in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to pay a one-time license fee of $100, as specified. Existing law authorizes the State Board of Equalization or a law enforcement agency that discovers that a retailer or other person possesses, stores, owns, or has made a retail sale of tobacco products on which a tax is due but has not been paid to seize those products, and deems those products forfeited, as specified. This bill would include in the definition of tobacco products for the purposes of those provisions relating to licenses for retailers the STAKE Act's new definition of tobacco products. This bill would require a retailer that seeks to sell a tobacco product that is not subject to imposition of a tax under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law to pay a one-time license fee to engage in the sale of that product, as specified. The bill would except the STAKE Act's new definition of tobacco products from the provision authorizing seizure of tobacco products described above. The bill would make these provisions operative on October 1, 2016. Existing law makes it a crime for a person or entity to engage in the business of selling cigarettes or tobacco products without a valid license or after a license has been suspended or revoked, as specified. Existing law also makes it a crime for a person to continue selling or gifting cigarettes or tobacco products without a valid license or after a notification of suspension or revocation, as specified. This bill would include in the definition of tobacco products for the purposes of those provisions the STAKE Act's new definition of tobacco products. The bill would make that provision operative on October 1, 2016. Existing law prohibits the smoking of cigarettes and other tobacco products in a variety of specified areas. Under existing law, a violation of some of these prohibitions is punishable as an infraction. This bill would change the location restrictions for smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products to reflect the STAKE Act's definitions of smoking and tobacco products. The bill would make the use of electronic cigarettes in some of these restricted locations a violation punishable as an infraction. Existing law prohibits the smoking of medical marijuana in any place where smoking is prohibited by law. This bill would declare that its provisions do not affect any law or regulation regarding medical marijuana. By expanding the scope of a crime, the 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
This measure would proclaim and acknowledge the month of June 2015 and June of every year thereafter as Elder and Vulnerable Adult Abuse Awareness Month.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership under the circumstances described above has occurred. This bill would additionally specify that if more than ___% of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as defined, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction obtains control, as defined. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. This bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2021, regarding the implementation of these changes in ownership, including, but not limited to, the economic impact and frequency of reassessments of real property owned by legal entities. Existing law requires, upon a change in control or change in ownership of a legal entity that owns an interest in real property in this state, or when requested by the State Board of Equalization, that the person or legal entity acquiring ownership or control, or the legal entity that has undergone a change in ownership, file a change in ownership statement with the board, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so. This bill would require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if more than ___% of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. This bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%, and would provide that the penalty shall apply for failure to file a complete statement with the State Board of Equalization following a transfer of legal entity ownership interests. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in control or a change in ownership of a legal entity has occurred. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
