Photo credit: 401kcalculator.org

Placing a tax on business services in California has the potential to raise an additional $122.6 billion annually for state and local governments, according to a recent Board of Equalization study. A services tax could become a reality if Senate Bill 8 is approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Although SB8 has yet to be considered by a policy committee, legislators are keen to see increased funding and stabilized revenue for state programs, while leaders in California’s $1.45 trillion services industry are panicking and threatening to leave the state. The BOE is concerned about the major bureaucratic expansion needed to administer the new tax.

The bill, dubbed the “Upward Mobility Act” by its author Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, is actually intended to increase tax revenue by only $10 billion. It proposes to dispense $3 billion of that to K-14 education, $3 billion to local governments, $2 billion to higher education and $2 billion to earned income tax credits for low-income residents.

In addition, the bill states that it “would enhance the state’s business climate, create jobs, and incentivize entrepreneurship by evaluating the current corporate income tax to determine whether it is meeting its intended purpose while at the same time linking changes to a more reasonable minimum wage.”

The bill exempts health care and education services as well as businesses with less than $100,000 in annual gross sales. The services tax would not replace the state sales tax, which brought in $48 billion in 2013-14 — equivalent to $1,300 for each California resident, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

According to the bill, a services tax is needed to keep up with the changing nature of the California economy, and provide a better balance and less volatility in government revenue:

“Over the past 60 years, California has moved from an agriculture- and manufacturing-based economy to a services-based economy,” the bill said. “As a result, state tax revenues have become less reliant on revenues derived from the Sales and Use Tax on goods and more reliant on revenues derived from the Personal Income Tax.

“In 1950, the Sales and Use Tax comprised 61 percent of all state revenues; today, it accounts for about 30 percent. The Personal Income Tax accounted for 12 percent of total state revenues in 1950; today, it accounts for more than 60 percent.

“Moreover, California’s General Fund tax collections are heavily dependent on the earnings of its top earners. This has led to dramatic revenue swings year over year … [which] have led to the suffering of California’s residents.

“Essential services, such as health care and child care for low-income families, were cut at a time when they were needed most. In addition, the state cut billions of dollars to education, including adult vocational and literacy education, which could have helped low-income families recover from the recession.

“Relying on the wealthiest taxpayers to support California’s needs is outdated and dangerous fiscal policy. Not only does it increase the uncertainty of tax collections, but there is evidence that California’s high tax rates may be driving high income earners out of the state, which only deepens revenue shortfalls.”

Business services comprise 80 percent of the economy today, according to the bill. Exempting them creates inequities; for example, taxing the purchase of TurboTax software but not taxing H&R Block.

The bill seeks to make three changes to the tax code:

• Broaden the tax base by imposing a sales tax on services to increase revenues.
• Enhance the state’s business climate and incentivize entrepreneurship and business creation by evaluating the corporate income tax to determine whether it is meeting its intended purposes, including whether it is borne equitably among California’s businesses and what impact it has on the business climate, while at the same time linking changes to a more reasonable minimum wage.
• Examine the impacts of lowering and simplifying the personal income tax while maintaining progressivity. The measure’s goal is to reduce personal income tax rates for low-and middle-class-income households so that families earning $100,000 pay only $1,000. The revenue reductions would phase in when new revenues replace revisions to the personal income tax and corporate tax.

The Board of Equalization was asked by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which Hertzberg chairs, to analyze the services tax. On April 14, BOE staff issued its $122.6 billion revenue estimate along with a fact sheet listing numerous concerns about the implementation of the tax. Those concerns include:

• The BOE’s operations will be significantly impacted. The BOE currently has over 1 million registered taxpayers who report sales tax on tangible personal property sales. Extending a broad-based tax on service providers’ sales could add millions of additional taxpayers — the largest expansion of BOE’s scope and role since sales and use tax was first established in the 1930s.
• Extensive outreach and taxpayer educational efforts would be necessary. A broad-based tax on services would require mass notification, educational efforts and outreach services in a short period of time.
• Adequate lead time is critical. [A] 12-month lead time would NOT provide sufficient time to prepare for and administer a broad-based tax.
• Definitions of taxable and nontaxable services must be clear and comprehensive.
• A tax on certain services provided to or by interstate businesses raises uncertainties in determining the portion of the service performed in California, and any proposed legislation should sufficiently address this issue. For example, what portion of the charges for a national advertising campaign would be subject to a proposed tax in California?
• Different tax rate on sales of services and sales of goods adds complexity.
• The financial impact on service providers who would be required to register and report sales tax cannot be minimized. It would be necessary for service providers to maintain point-of-sale systems, or similar software, to account for and properly remit sales tax. The cost for such systems would cause significant hardship in many cases.
• As significant consumers of services, all levels of government would be impacted by a tax on services.
• Potential for referendum or repeal. If a tax on services is suspended or ultimately repealed, the state may not recover costs associated with the expansion. Four states — Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland and Michigan — all enacted and then later repealed a tax on services.
• “A sales tax on services would dramatically grow the state’s multi-billion dollar underground economy, requiring greater investments of time and resources to combat it by the BOE and other state and local government agencies.”

At the BOE’s April 28 meeting, several board members expanded on those concerns. Board member Diane Harkey said she’s concerned about trying to enforce the tax on small businesses. “I for one don’t want the BOE to once again be hunting down all the little guys to try to eke a few dollars out of them,” Harkey said.

“So I’m not real pleased with this. I think it’s going down a path that, unless we totally overhaul all taxes in the state, this probably doesn’t work. And I think we’ll build up a ton of opposition. I do appreciate your study. But in reality, the take would not be that [much] in real terms. I think we’d be gathering sufficiently less.”

Business leaders have expressed their concerns to Harkey.

“They were very panicked about this bill,” she said. “[One] industry representative said, ‘We’re planning expansion here and … we’re not going to go forward if this is going to happen. People watch California. And, you know, this academic discussion we’re having could very dramatically affect capital investment.”

Board member George Runner is concerned that the BOE might have to quadruple its staffing to 20,000 employees to deal with an additional 2.5 million businesses paying the services tax. But, he said, the BOE analysis is a good starting point for a discussion of the impacts of the tax.

“I look at this as just base information,” said Runner. “And then it’s going to be up to the legislators down the street to figure out how to narrow the bill. I think, as Sen. Hertzberg has said, he’s got some thoughts in his head in regards to what [services] he’s going to include and exclude.

“And I think the next discussion that’s going to take place is who’s in and who’s out. I’ve heard from lots of folks in the industries in terms of who are concerned about it, feeling like this gives them something, some real meat for them to deal with it.”

Board member Jerome Horton said he hopes legislators will not focus on taxes simply as revenue generators.

“If you look at what I believe the initial purpose that the founding fathers had when it came to taxation, was to modify the behavior,” he said. “If the behavior that we want in California is to create jobs, if the behavior that we want is to address poverty and those things in our society, I believe we can find a consensus in order to be able to fund that.

“Part of the challenge, I think, is there’s folks who fundamentally believe that the money isn’t spent right, and the return on the investment isn’t there.”

Those folks include the California Taxpayers Association, whose fiscal policy director, Therese Twomey, has dissected the idea of taxing services.

“In addition to problems related to competitive disadvantages, job loss and tax administration, taxes on services raise a host of other concerns, including increasing costs for government, disproportionately impacting small businesses, tax pyramiding, etc.,” she said in a CalTax newsletter.

Hertzberg responded to the BOE analysis in a press release.

“This landmark study confirms that California’s economy has undergone a revolution,” he said. “Eighty percent of California’s economy is now providing services, not goods, and most of these services are untaxed, making California more dependent on personal income taxes, which fluctuate year to year. It is that dependence on an unstable revenue source — not high taxes — that threatens our state’s economy.”

He noted that the BOE estimate overstates the revenue expected from his bill because the estimate includes education and health-care services, which the bill excludes. “Details about SB8 will continue to unfold during the year; its first policy hearing has not yet been set,” he said.

By Chris Reed

There’s finally some mainstream media coverage of the astounding decision of the Franchise Tax Board to rewrite a tax break and go after profits accumulated by some business owners that date back to 2008. The U-T San Diego story by Chris Cadelago only makes the money grab seem all the more outrageous in that it is depicted as something that was conceived of and executed solely by FTB bureaucrats, without the knowledge or consent of elected officials.

“SACRAMENTO — About 2,000 small business owners and investors across California are being forced to retroactively pay the state four years of assessments totaling $120 million plus interest, based on a decision by the Franchise Tax Board.

“In December, the state agency that administers personal income and corporate taxes ended a nearly 20-year-old tax incentive designed to spur investment in startup companies and small businesses, citing a court ruling. The benefit allowed small business investors who sold their stock at a gain to exclude half the profits from their income taxes. …

“The decision was made at the staff level, not by the three members of the Franchise Tax Board — John Chiang, state controller; Jerome E. Horton, chairman of the Board of Equalization and Ana Matosantos, state finance director.”

The article notes that Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, are upset with the FTB and may seek a reversal of the ruling, but where’s Jerry Brown?

For more than a year, our governor has sold himself as a critic of bureaucracy and mindless regulation and a champion of a business-friendly state government. He did so again in his State of the State address.

The FTB money grab is an acid test of whether it’s just more Moonbeamian hot air or whether the governor really believes what he says.

Jan. 18, 2013

By Chris Reed

That California is extraordinarily hostile to business is accepted as a given by just about everyone who is an executive, manager or small-business owner in the state.  But Democrats and some in the media routinely challenge this assumption, and some genuinely seem to believe it’s nothing but a talking point used by business interests to gain undeserved favor.

I once saw a labor official even suggest there was something sinister or rigged about the CEO survey that comes out every year and always ranks the Golden State last in business-friendliness, as if there was a national conspiracy to put California down.

To a degree, Gov. Jerry Brown seems to believe that the business community’s gripes have some merit. So he’s taken to criticizing excessive regulation and to urging bureaucrats to help, not hinder, job creation.

Brown now faces an acid test for his alleged interest in helping the private sector: an insanely capricious and destructive decision by the state’s Franchise Tax Board to impose four years of retroactive taxes on hundreds of businesses because it lost a court fight with one business. It was a fight that started in 2008 over whether the company qualified for a tax break that encourages entrepreneurs — a partial state income tax exclusion on sales of stock of a “Qualified Small Business.”

Tax decree

At xconomy.com, victimized businessman Brian Overstreet shares his horrific story of facing a huge ex post facto tax decree, and explains its genesis:

“The company at issue in that lawsuit did not meet one of the QSB requirements—that it maintain 80 percent of its employees and assets in California. In August of 2012, the California Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiff, ruling that denying him the QSB exclusion based on the ’80 percent requirement’ was an unconstitutional violation of the interstate commerce clause.

“Since the FTB lost the case, you might think that they would strike the unconstitutional requirement and keep the rest of QSB statute intact. Not a chance.

“What the FTB did instead was to take their ball and go home. They decided that since they could not impose the 80 percent requirement, no one would be entitled to the QSB exclusion. They put out an announcement terminating the Qualified Small Business exclusion and retroactively disqualifying all exclusions and deferrals going all the way back to 2008.”

This is bonkers. You don’t get much more anti-business than punishing business owners out of pique over losing a lawsuit that those business owners had nothing to do with.

Overstreet’s takeaway from this assault on sanity:

“1. If you are a business founder or early investor who sold stock since 2008 and took the QSB exclusion: Surprise! You are going to get a bill from the FTB for the 50 percent of the taxes you excluded plus interest plus possible penalties.

“2. If you are a business founder or early investor and have not yet sold stock: Rethink your business and tax planning strategies. Consider whether it’s fiscally prudent to stay in California.

“3. If you a contemplating starting or investing in a California business: Think long and hard. Consider out-of-state alternatives.”

The governor should clean house, right? Well …

If Jerry Brown really means what he says about wanting to help grow jobs in California, here’s what he should do: Clean house at the Franchise Tax Board.

FTB Executive Director Selvi Stanislaus? He should be gone, for starters. And so should everyone at FTB who thought this made sense.

But there’s a little problem with the let’s-clean-house theory. According to the FTB’s website, who are the three members of the agency’s governing board?

1) Ana Matosantos. As in Jerry Brown’s director of finance.

Evidently word of the governor’s desire to help the private sector hasn’t reached his Cabinet.

2) Jerome Horton. As in the former Democratic lawmaker from Inglewood appointed by Brown to the FTB oversight post.

Evidently word of the governor’s desire to help the private sector hasn’t been shared with his board appointees.

3) John Chiang. As in the state controller, elected by the voters.

Evidently breaking trust with job-creating entrepreneurs in such grotesque and extreme fashion isn’t a big deal to the veteran Democrat who fancies himself as governor material.

I look forward to watching this story play out. Most mainstream media in California have little sympathy for business complaints. But everyone can relate to the story of people hit with four years of dubious back taxes because of childishness and stupidity from tax bureaucrats. And their bosses.

Your move, Gov. Brown. Yo, Jerry: Do you think this is fair? Tolerable? Honorable?

We shall see.