

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:
- An outline of the substance of the proposed topic with appropriate detail of the subject matter to be covered.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A discussion of any important collateral consequences the proposal may have with respect to other tax laws.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Conform California Revenue & Taxation Section 18031.5 to IRC Section 1031 on Like Kind Exchanges (pdf version)
- Positive Progress on Penalties to Prevent Perceived Prejudice (pdf version)
- Proposal To Amend The Revenue And Taxation Code To Create A Tribal Property Tax Exemption For Land Return Transactions (pdf version)
- Proposed Funding for California-based Low-Income Tax Clinics to Assist with California State Tax Controversies (pdf version)
- Streamlining Collections By State Tax Agencies: A Proposal For Multi-Agency Financial Statement Forms (pdf version)
(If you want us to email you a copy with the exhibits, please contact Taxation@calawyers.org)
Past Delegations
2019 Delegation Papers
- Modification of California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1755(a) to Provide a Minimum Holding Period for Surrender of Property Subject to Levy from Financial Institutions (pdf version)
- California Source Net Operating Losses: A Proposal For Eliminating Inequity In Combined Reporting By Providing Taxpayers In A Combined Reporting Group With An Option To Assign California Source Net Operating Losses To Other Members In The Same Combined Reporting Group (pdf version)
- Updating California’s Other State Tax Credit Laws to Account for New Pass-through Entity Tax Regimes Recently Enacted in Other States in Response to the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017 (pdf version)
- Bringing Back the Buffer: A Proposal to Amend CRTC Section 18604(a) to Provide a Seven-Month Filing Extension to Corporate Taxpayers (pdf version)
- A Proposal for First-Time Abatement of Timeliness Penalties (pdf version)
- California Tax Reporting for International Business Travelers: A Proposal for Composite Returns (pdf version)
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:
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:
Clean Break: Terminating Agency Relationship with Key Corporation |
Mike Shaikh |
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 |
Coordination of the BOE and FTB Voluntary Disclosure Programs and the Conflicting Registration Requirements of the Two Programs |
Steven Walker |
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 |
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:
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 |
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 |
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 |
A Proposal for Regulations – Applying the Grantor Trust Rules in California and Defining Contingent and Noncontingent Beneficiary |
Chris Campbell |
Achieving Consistency: Unifying the Change in Ownership & Change in Control Filing Deadline for Decedent’s Estates & Trusts |
Irina Rospotnyuk |
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:
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 |
Automatic Conformity: Conforming California RICs and REMICs To The Internal Revenue Code |
N. Aaron Johnson |
Discretionary Disallowance of Compensation Paid to Workers: The Need for Guidance under R&T Code Sections 17299.8 and 24447 |
Lisa O. Barnett |
The Enactment of a Voluntary Disclosure Practice For California Taxing Authorities |
Haleh Naimi |
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;
Tax-Exempt Mortgage Bonds: A Way to Alleviate the Self-Inflicted Damage Caused by CALHFA’s Reading of IRC Sec. 143 |
Joseph P. Wilson |
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 |
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 |