Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities and authorizes persons to conduct specified commercial cannabis activities, as defined, in the state. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various deductions in computing the income that is subject to the taxes imposed by those laws. The Personal Income Tax Law conforms as of a specified date to federal income tax laws with respect to itemized deductions, including business deductions and items not deductible, except as specifically provided. The Corporation Tax Law does not conform to those federal income tax provisions, but specifically provides for deductions for purposes of that law. Existing federal income tax laws disallow a deduction or credit for business expenses of a trade or business whose activities consist of trafficking specified controlled substances, including marijuana. The Personal Income Tax Law conforms to those federal income tax law provisions with respect to deductions. This bill, for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2025, would specifically provide in the Personal Income Tax Law for nonconformity to that federal law disallowing a deduction or credit for business expenses of a trade or business whose activities consist of trafficking specified controlled substances only for commercial cannabis activity, as defined under MAUCRSA, by a licensee under MAUCRSA, thus allowing deduction of business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on that commercial cannabis activity under the Personal Income Tax Law. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Sponsored bills
(1) If the Regents of the University of California accept the responsibility, existing law requires the University of California to establish the California Cannabis Research Program, also sometimes referred to as the California Marijuana Research Program or the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, in order to develop and conduct studies intended to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of cannabis, among other duties. Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative statute approved by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election as Proposition 64, among other things, establishes the California Cannabis Tax Fund as a continuously appropriated fund consisting of specified taxes, interest, penalties, and other amounts imposed by AUMA. AUMA requires, after other specified disbursements are made from the fund, the Controller to disburse $2,000,000 to the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. This bill would specify that the program is hosted by the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. The bill would authorize the program to cultivate cannabis for its use in research, pursuant to applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The bill would expand the purview of the program, which is funded by the California Cannabis Tax Fund, to include the study of naturally occurring constituents of cannabis and synthetic compounds and to require the program to develop and conduct studies to examine the effects of cannabis, cannabinoids, and related constituents, and other behavioral health outcomes. The bill would also authorize the controlled clinical trials to focus on examining testing methods for detecting harmful contaminants in cannabis, including mold and bacteria. The bill would require funds from the California Cannabis Tax Fund to be used only as authorized by the AUMA. Existing law authorizes the program to solicit, apply for, and accept funds from foundations, private individuals, and all other funding sources that can be used to expand the scope or timeframe of the cannabis studies. Existing law prohibits the program from accepting funds that are offered with any conditions other than that the funds be used to study the efficacy and safety of cannabis as part of medical treatment. Existing law requires that a donor be advised that funds given for these purposes will be used to study both the possible benefits and detriments of cannabis and that the donor will have no control over the use of the funds. This bill would delete the requirement that a donor be given this advisement. Existing law requires the program to report to the Legislature every 6 months detailing the progress of the studies. This bill would, instead, require the program to report to the Legislature every 24 months. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requests the University of California to compile specified information, including a survey of existing resources throughout California's governmental and administrative structure that are available to address the needs of an aging society. Existing law requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, based upon the information compiled by the University of California and with the consultation or advice of specified entities, to develop a statewide strategic plan on aging for long-term planning purposes and submit the plan to the Legislature. By executive order, the Governor ordered that a master plan for aging be developed and issued to serve as a blueprint to implement strategies and partnerships that promote healthy aging and prepare the state for upcoming demographic changes. The executive order requires the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a Cabinet-level Workgroup for Aging to advise the secretary in developing and issuing the master plan. This bill would require the secretary, in coordination with the Director of the California Department of Aging, to lead the development and implementation of the master plan established pursuant to that executive order. The bill would require the secretary and the director, with the assistance of the workgroup, to work with specified agencies, as needed, to identify policies, efficiencies, and strategies necessary to implement the master plan. The bill would also require the workgroup to solicit input and gather information to assist with the implementation of the master plan. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by October 1, 2020, and submit updates annually thereafter, until October 1, 2030, regarding the master plan.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes specified employment and housing practices unlawful, including discrimination against or harassment of employees and tenants, among others. Existing law authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year from the date upon which the unlawful practice occurred, unless otherwise specified. This bill would extend the above-described period to 3 years for complaints alleging employment discrimination, as specified. The bill would specify that the operative date of the verified complaint is the date that the intake form was filed with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would make conforming changes in provisions that grant a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice who first obtains knowledge of the facts of the alleged unlawful practice after the expiration of the limitations period, as specified. Existing law authorizes the Director of Fair Employment and Housing to bring a civil action in the name of the department on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved in the case of failure to eliminate an unlawful practice through conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion. Existing law requires the director to bring the civil action within a specified time after the filing of the complaint. This bill would, for those purposes, define filing a complaint to mean filing an intake form with the department, and would specify that the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the form. This bill would prohibit its provisions from being interpreted to revive lapsed claims.
Existing law, the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, requires a mandated reporter, as defined, to report whenever they, in their professional capacity or within the scope of their employment, have knowledge of or observed a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Failure by a mandated reporter to report an incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months of confinement in a county jail, by a fine of $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. This bill would add qualified autism service providers, qualified autism service professionals, and qualified autism service paraprofessionals, as defined, to the list of individuals who are mandated reporters. By imposing the reporting requirements on a new class of persons, for whom failure to report specified conduct is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1165.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1153 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1153 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
Existing law generally provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law requires a victim or derivative victim seeking compensation to have sustained one or more specified physical or emotional injuries, or pecuniary losses, as a direct result of the crime. Existing law authorizes the board to grant compensation for pecuniary loss, if it determines it will best aid the person seeking compensation, by authorizing a cash payment or reimbursement to a victim for expenses incurred in relocating, including a security deposit, if the expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim. Existing law specifies that if a security deposit is required for relocation, the board shall be named as the recipient, and receive the funds, upon expiration of the victim's rental agreement. This bill would specify, for purposes of these provisions, that "expenses incurred in relocating" may include the costs of temporary housing for any pets belonging to the victim upon immediate relocation. The bill would also authorize the cash payment or grant to reimburse a victim for a security deposit, pet deposit, or both, for which the board would be named as the recipient, and would receive the funds, upon expiration of the victim's rental agreement. By expanding the authorizations for use of moneys in the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 13957 of the Government Code proposed by AB 629 to be operative only if this bill and AB 629 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Under existing law, it is an infraction or a misdemeanor for a person to permit a dog that is owned, harbored, or controlled by the person to cause injury to, or the death of, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined, while the guide, signal, or service dog is in discharge of its duties. Existing law makes a person who intentionally causes injury to, or the death of, a guide, signal, or service dog, while the dog is in discharge of its duties, guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would delete, from both crimes, the requirement that the guide, signal, or service dog be in discharge of its duties when the injury or death occurs and would make these crimes applicable to the injury or death of dogs that are enrolled in a training school or program for guide, signal, or service dogs, as specified. Under existing law, if a defendant is convicted of either of the above crimes, the defendant is required to make restitution to the person with a disability who has custody or ownership of the dog for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed, or other reasonable costs deemed appropriate by the court. The bill would require the defendant, convicted of either crime, to also make restitution to the person for medical or medical-related expenses, or for loss of wages or income, as defined, incurred by the person with a disability. The bill would also include in the definition of "replacement costs" for this purpose the training costs for a new dog, if needed, the cost of keeping the now-disabled dog in a kennel while the handler travels to receive the new dog, and, if needed, the cost of the travel required for the handler to receive the new dog. Because this bill would expand the scope and penalties of existing crimes, it 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.
Existing law establishes the Department of Motor Vehicles in the Transportation Agency and sets forth the powers and duties of the department, including, but not limited to, vehicle registration and the issuance and renewal of driver's licenses. Existing law defines a "person," for the purposes of these and related provisions, as a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. Under existing law, a violation of, or failure to comply with, any provision of the Vehicle Code is unlawful and constitutes an infraction, unless otherwise provided. This bill would make it unlawful for any person to sell, or offer for sale, an appointment with the department, as specified. Because a violation of this provision would be an infraction, the 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of residential tenancies, and prohibits a landlord from demanding or receiving security for a rental agreement for residential property, however denominated, in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to 2 months' rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, and an amount equal to 3 months' rent, in the case of furnished residential property, in addition to any rent for the first month paid on or before initial occupancy. This bill, notwithstanding that provision and as specified, would prohibit a landlord from demanding or receiving security from a service member who rents residential property in which the service member will reside in an amount or value in excess of an amount equal to one months' rent, in the case of unfurnished residential property, or in excess of an amount equal to 2 months' rent, in the case of furnished residential property, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a landlord from refusing to enter into a rental agreement for residential property with a prospective tenant who is a service member because this provision prohibits the landlord from demanding a greater amount of security.
Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the California Building Standards Commission for approval and adoption. Existing law requires the commission to publish, or cause to be published, editions of the code in its entirety once every 3 years. Existing law, the State Housing Law, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of building standards to the California Building Standards Commission. This bill would, at the next triennial building standards rulemaking cycle that commences on or after January 1, 2020, require the Department of Housing and Community Development to investigate possible changes to the building standards in the California Residential Code for adoption by the California Building Standards Commission to promote aging-in-place design, as specified.