gradient header image

This Fall, the Taxation Section will hold its annual delegation to Sacramento, where tax practitioners present papers offering proposals related to topics of concern to high-ranking officials of the Board of Equalization, California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Franchise Tax Board, Office of Tax Appeals, and Legislative staff. The proposals and comments contained in the papers are the individual views of the authors who prepared them and do not represent the position of the California Lawyer’s Association (CLA) or the Taxation Section of the CLA.

The 2024 Sacramento Delegation is set for October 18, 2024, in-person, at Franchise Tax Board. It is tentatively planned as an informal morning discussion on federal conformity, followed by a provided lunch, and then the presentation of papers. Several papers in the past resulted in legislation proposed to the State Legislature and changes in agency policy. If you are interested in learning more about the Sacramento Delegation or presenting a paper at the delegation, please contact:

Shail Shah
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
101 2nd Street | Suite 2200 | San Francisco, CA 94105-3668
T +1 415.655.1306
Taxation@calawyers.org

The deadline for proposals to be submitted to Shail Shah for the 2024 Sacramento Delegation is Friday, May 31, 2024.

REQUIREMENTS FOR TOPIC SUBMISSIONS

Anyone wishing to be considered for participation in the 2024 Sacramento Delegation will be required to submit a written (topic) proposal, approximately 2-3 pages in length. The Taxation Section does not cover any participant’s expenses. 

Each proposal must include the following:

  1. An outline of the substance of the proposed topic with appropriate detail of the subject matter to be covered.
  2. A discussion of the current law, and the reason for the proposed change, together with an explanation of the proposed change in sufficient detail to permit technical evaluation.
  3. A “Problems Addressed” section identifying the problems addressed by the proposal; indicating why the problem is sufficiently important and widespread to merit attention; and stating whether other proposals have been advanced to address the same problem.
  4. A “Merits of the Proposal” section, noting the proposal’s advantages and disadvantages for various categories of taxpayers or transactions, both as compared to current law and as compared to other proposals for changing the law.
  5. A discussion of any important collateral consequences the proposal may have with respect to other tax laws.
  6. An explanation of why the proposal is feasible – politically and economically. In this regard, authors should be cognizant of the restrictions placed on possible tax legislation by Propositions 13 and 26.
  7. A statement as to with whom the author has discussed the topic in government, whether it be an individual legislator, a legislative committee staff member, or any California tax agency or legislative committee.  If no such contact has been made, also note that.
  8. A statement as to whether the author presently or previously has had a matter involving the issue pending before any state or local tax authority (e.g., FTB, EDD, CDTFA, BOE, County Board of Supervisors, Assessor), administrative tribunal or court.
  9. A statement as to whether the author has or has had a direct personal or financial interest in the issue addressed in the paper. If yes, include an explanation.
  10. The names of two suggested reviewers (neither reviewer can be a member of, employed by, or otherwise associated with the author’s company or firm). Be sure these reviewers are able to meet the quick turnaround time in August (schedule is forthcoming).
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN PROPOSING, DRAFTING AND REVIEWING TOPICS, PROPOSALS AND PAPERS

The following questions should help you formulate proposals, draft or review papers, and anticipate questions from officials in Sacramento.

1. Why should the government take any action on this issue?

  • What makes it important enough to incur the costs of changing the current rules?
  • Why should action be taken now?  Have there been any new developments, such as a new case, a new position by a California tax agency, or economic changes?

2. What are the problems with the current law?

  • How widespread are the problems?  On a macro level, possible problems include cost, complexity, administrability and horizontal inequity.
  • On a micro level, for whom or what is the current regime a problem?
  • Consider both categories of transactions and categories of taxpayers.  Be as particular as possible in identifying the problems and reasons for change.

3. What are the advantages of your proposal?

  • Whom would it help and how?
  • If you are carving out a category for special treatment when there are others arguably similarly situated, what justifies the special treatment?

4. What are the disadvantages of your solution? (Ask yourself the questions a government official would ask.)

  • Who would it hurt? Consider groups other than your own clients; small business vs. large; in-state taxpayers vs. multistate taxpayers; individual taxpayers; fiscal year taxpayers; taxpayers subject to AMT; particular industries; particular transactions.  Don’t forget the government’s interest.
  • Would your proposal open loopholes?  How can you guard against abuse and avoid complicating the proposal?

5. What analogies to your proposal exist in the current law?

  • Do they argue in favor of or against your solution?
  • Have they been developed for situations and problems that are similar to or different from your problem?

6. Why should action be taken at the level you propose (legislation vs. regulation vs. ruling)?

7. If you are proposing administrative action, does the FTB, BOE, CDTFA or EDD have the authority?

8. Are there or have there been other proposals to address the issue already on the table (possibly from other bar groups, the ALI or AICPA, trade associations, academia, or state or federal legislation)?

  • How do they compare to your proposal?
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of those alternatives?
  • If your first choice were to be rejected, do you have an alternative proposal?

9. Have you discussed the relevant legislative or administrative history?

  • What was the stated purpose for adopting the current rule?
  • Have you thoroughly addressed those concerns?
  • Might there be other, unexpressed (for example, political) reasons for the current law?  Does your proposal address these concerns?

10. What are the collateral consequences of your proposal for other tax laws?

11. Might your proposal affect laws and rules outside of tax?  Why should the problem be addressed through the tax laws?

12. Is your paper as short as possible?  Your paper should be thoughtful and thorough, but to the point.

13. Do you have an accurate, brief and inviting title for the paper?

Delegation Papers

Past Delegations

2019 Delegation Papers

2017 Sacramento Delegation Held February 3, 2017

The 2017 Sacramento Delegation was held February 3, 2017, at the Capitol Building in Sacramento. The delegation was led by Christopher Campbell. The papers and presenters for the 2017 Sacramento Delegation were:

Topic
Presenter(s)
Tax Procedure: California Should Conform to Federal Law and Allow Expedited Tentative NOL Refunds

Ben Elliot and Lauren Knapp

New Federal Partnership Audit Procedures—Issues to Consider and When to Act

Nikki Dobay

California’s Per Partner Penalty: A Proposal for Reform to Encourage Compliance But Not Unfairly Punish

Brian Toman and Shirley Wei

Uncertainty When a Unitary Foreign Affiliate Becomes a Taxpayer in a Water’s-Edge Combined Reporting Group: Reform to Fairly Reflect the Intent of the Water’s-Edge Election and Account for the New Unitary Foreign Affiliate Taxpayer

Robert Keith Gray, Jr. and Joshua M. Grossman

2016 Sacramento Delegation, February 5, 2016

The 2016 Sacramento Delegation was held on February 6, 2016. Jenna Lewis led the Delegation. The papers and presenters for the 2016 Sacramento Delegation were:

Topic
Presenter(s)
Clean Break: Terminating Agency Relationship with Key Corporation

Mike Shaikh
Erin Mariano

Proposal to Amend Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19255 to Avoid Extension of the 20-Year Statute of Limitations by Unilateral Action of the California Franchise Tax Board

Andrew Allen

Amendment of Revenue and Taxation Code to Clarify that Income Earned by a Reservation Indian is Exempt from Personal Income Tax if the Income is Earned from a Source Within Indian Country

Michelle LaPena

Legislative Proposal for Infusing Guaranteed Fairness in Tax Administration by Allowing Partial Prepayment Judicial Review of FTB-Proposed Personal Income and Franchise Tax Deficiencies

Mark Bernsley

In Defense of Regulations: California, Market-Based Sourcing, and the Defense Industry

Shail Shah
Alexis Binazir

Coordination of the BOE and FTB Voluntary Disclosure Programs and the Conflicting Registration Requirements of the Two Programs

Steven Walker
Jonathan Amitrano

A Proposal to Address the Improper and Unreasonable Fees Imposed by California Counties on Taxpayers When Exercising Their Rights to Appeal Assessed Property Taxes

Christina Harper
Colin Fraser

2015 Sacramento Delegation, January 23, 2015

The 2015 Sacramento Delegation was held on January 23, 2015. Roburt Waldow led the Delegation. The papers and presenters for the 2015 Sacramento Delegation were:

Topic
Presenter(s)
Reforming California’s Personal Income Tax Credit For Taxes Paid to Another State to Fairly Account for Differences in State Apportionment Rules and Reduce the Administrative Burden of Calculating the Credit

Valerie C. Dickerson
Joshua M. Grossman

Proposal to Amend Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19035 to Mandate that the Franchise Tax Board Provide All Notices Relating to Joint Tax Returns to Each Joint Filer

Robert S. Horwitz
Carolyn M. Lee

Simplified Return Filing and Tax Payments for Partnership and Limited Liability Company Conversions

Layton L. Pace

In California We Trust: A Sensible Expansion of the Voluntary Disclosure Program

Brian W. Toman
Mike Shaikh
Erin Mariano

A Proposal for Regulations – Applying the Grantor Trust Rules in California and Defining Contingent and Noncontingent Beneficiary

Chris Campbell
Paul Frimmer

Achieving Consistency: Unifying the Change in Ownership & Change in Control Filing Deadline for Decedent’s Estates & Trusts

Irina Rospotnyuk
Derek Takehara

Amending Section 68 to Allow Displaced Property Owners to Transfer Their Proposition 13 Base Year Values to a Replacement Property When Their Original Property is Acquired by a Public Utility Under Threat of Condemnation

Michael T. Lebeau

Amending Section 5140 To Give Corporate Parent and Subsidiary Entities Standing to File Property Tax Refund Actions Following Assessment Appeals Board Decisions

Cris K. O’Neall

2014 Sacramento Delegations, February 10, 2014

The 2014 Sacramento Delegation was held on February 10, 2014. Betty Williams led the Delegation. The papers and presenters for the 2014 Sacramento Delegation were:

Topic
Presenter(s)
Legislation to Create an EDD Version of the IRS Voluntary Classification Settlement Program

James Bourbeau

Should a Trust Be Subject to State Income Tax Because a Trustee Is In California?

Justin T. Miller
Richard S. Kinyon

Automatic Conformity: Conforming California RICs and REMICs To The Internal Revenue Code

N. Aaron Johnson
Minna C. Yang

Discretionary Disallowance of Compensation Paid to Workers: The Need for Guidance under R&T Code Sections 17299.8 and 24447

Lisa O. Barnett
A. Lavar Taylor

The Enactment of a Voluntary Disclosure Practice For California Taxing Authorities

Haleh Naimi
Robert S. Horwitz

Repeal Revenue & Taxation Section 6405

Annette Nellen

Beyond Proposition 90: An Expansion For Intercounty Base-Year Value Transfers

W. Martin Behn

2013 Sacramento Delegation, February 7, 2013

The 2013 Sacramento Delegation was held on February 7, 2013. Annette Nellen led the Delegation. The papers and presenters for the 2013 Sacramento Delegation were;

Topic
Presenter(s)
Tax-Exempt Mortgage Bonds: A Way to Alleviate the Self-Inflicted Damage Caused by CALHFA’s Reading of IRC Sec. 143

Joseph P. Wilson
Robert Horwitz

Collecting the Minimum: A Proposal for Changes to the Minimum Tax Collection Rules

Gregory A. Zbylut

A Proposed Voluntary Disclosure Program for Individuals and Businesses Seeking to Become Tax Compliant with the California FTB

Sanford Millar
Steve Walker

California Doubling of 20% Federal Tax Increase under IRC Section 409A

Marla Aspinwall

Legislative and Administrative Proposals to Improve Use Tax Collection

Annette Nellen

Proposal to Effectuate Judicial and Administrative Economy in Property Tax Matters by Requiring Succinct Remand Orders from Courts to County Boards

Bradley Marsh

Suggested Amendments to Change in Control Statement Late Filing Penalties

Michael Lebeau

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment