Home | Newsroom | About Us | Upcoming Events | FAQ | Contact | Blog | RSS RSS
 
 
 

Archive for the ‘Tax News’ Category

FTB Legislative Update for Last Week

Monday, March 22nd, 2010 | Tax News

Assembly Bills

  • AB 1662 (Portantino/Jeffries) Disaster Loss Deduction/Excess Loss Carryover/August 2009 Los Angeles County Wildfires/January 2010 Los Angeles County Winter Storms – Amended 03/10/10
  • AB 1705 (Perez) Income Exclusion for Specified Energy Property Grants – Introduced 02/01/10 & Amended 03/08/10
  • AB 1735 (Harkey) Back To School Tax Credit – Introduced 02/04/10
  • AB 1779 (Niello) Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Modification and Extension -Introduced 02/09/10
  • AB 1806 (Hagman, et al.) Exclusion Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Principal Residence By Surviving Spouse -Amended 03/15/10
  • AB 2177 (Torlakson/Beall) Allow Electronic Communication To Taxpayers To Inform Of Tax Change Or Obligation – Introduced 02/18/10

Assembly Special Session Bills

  • ABX8 34 (Jeffries) Principal Residence Credit – Introduced 02/01/10

Senate Bills

  • SB 1076 (Price) Voluntary Contribution Fund Designation/Arts Council Fund – Introduced 02/17/10
  • SB 1316 (Romero) Legislative Intent To enact Legislation To Phase Out Specified Tax Credits – Introduced 02/19/10
  • SB 1391 (Yee) PIT Definitions Technical Amendment – Introduced 02/19/10

BOE March Bulletin

Friday, March 19th, 2010 | Tax News

New tax rates to take effect April 1, 2010
Voters in two cities in California have approved new transactions (sales) and use taxes (district taxes) that are effective April 1, 2010. The new rates apply only within each city’s incorporated limits. The tax rates outside the incorporated city limits will remain the same.

City of Gustine 8.75 percent
The City of Gustine, located in Merced County, approved a 0.50 percent City of Gustine transactions and use tax, (GSTG/224) which will increase the tax rate within city limits to 8.75 percent from 8.25 percent.

City of San Mateo 9.50 percent
The City of San Mateo, located in San Mateo County, approved a 0.25 percent City of San Mateo transactions and use tax (SMTG/226), which will increase the tax rate within city limits to 9.50 percent from 9.25 percent.

Is your address in the city limits or unincorporated county?
You can verify whether your business is located within a city that has a district tax. District boundaries are generally defined by city and county lines. Many California zip codes overlap city and county lines. To determine which district taxes affect your sales, visit www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/ cityaddresses.htm for a listing of city links. If you do not find the city you are looking for on our website, you may contact the city directly to determine whether or not your business or your customer is within the city boundaries.

Tax Rate Locator
As an additional resource for obtaining the sales and use tax rate for a specific address, you may want to use the free tax rate locator service on the Group 1 Software Local Sales and Use Tax Rate Locator website. That site allows any person to determine local tax jurisdictions and tax rates based on address. However, the geotax site is not maintained by the Board of Equalization (BOE) and the link is provided only as a public service. The BOE is not responsible for the content or accuracy of the information shown on that site.

For more information
For information on district taxes, please see publication 44, District Taxes. For updated tax rates throughout California, see publication 71, California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates. BOE publications are available at www.boe.ca.gov.

If you are a qualified purchaser, your 2009 use tax return and payment are due by April 15, 2010

Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) section 6225 now requires a “qualified purchaser” to register with the BOE and report and pay use tax directly to the BOE annually. In general, use tax applies to purchases of merchandise from out-of-state sellers (both foreign and domestic) for storage, use, or other consumption in California. If the out-of-state seller does not collect use tax on your purchase, then you must pay the applicable use tax directly to the BOE. This is true whether the purchases were made in person, over the Internet, by telephone, or by mail order. If an out-of-state seller charges you California tax, you should be sure to obtain a receipt. The use tax rate for any location is the same as the sales tax rate and applies to the purchase price of the property.

A “qualified purchaser,” is a person that meets all of the following conditions:
• Receives at least $100,000 in gross receipts from business operations per calendar year. Note: Gross receipts is the total of all receipts from both in-state and out-of-state business operations.

• Is not required to hold a seller’s permit or certificate of registration for use tax.
• Is not a holder of a use tax direct payment permit.
• Is not otherwise registered with the BOE to report use tax.
While the BOE has contacted many qualified purchasers in order to register them, it remains the qualified purchaser’s responsibility to register with the BOE. To register for a use tax account complete a BOE-404-A, Use Tax Registration, and submit it to the BOE. A qualified purchaser is also required to file a return, reporting and paying use tax on the total purchase price of tangible merchandise that is subject to use tax during the preceding calendar year, and for which tax was not paid to a retailer required to collect the use tax.

Please note: This does do not apply to the purchase of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. Registered qualified purchasers can electronically file (eFile) a use tax return through the BOE’s free eFiling system (BOE-file). The return for 2009, along with payment, is due by April 15, 2010.

For additional information regarding your registration and reporting requirements, please refer to publication 123, California Businesses: How to Identify California Use Tax Due, and special notice, L-232, New Registration and Reporting Requirements for Certain Purchasers (September 2009). For additional information on eFiling, refer to publication 159, eFile Guide. All BOE forms and publications are available at www.boe.ca.gov.

Certain nonprofit organizations are regarded as consumers, rather than retailers

Effective immediately through January 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 1486 provides that 501(c) membership organizations are consumers and not retailers of certain sales of tangible personal property (merchandise) sold to the organizations’ members under specific conditions. The requirements are:
1. The merchandise bears a logo or other identifying mark of the organization and is a promotional item or an item commonly associated with use by a member to demonstrate the member’s association with, or membership in, the organization.
2. The selling price of the merchandise to the member of the organization does not exceed the cost by the nonprofit organization to obtain and transfer the merchandise. The costs include any applicable sales or use tax paid by the nonprofit organization.
3. Reasonable steps are taken by the organization to ensure that no member is allowed to acquire more than 30 identical items of this merchandise or to resell the items to another person.
4. The merchandise is not distributed for political campaigning purposes or issue advocacy.

The purpose of this bill is to relieve nonprofit organizations from the burdensome and time-consuming task of maintaining records and filing sales tax returns for their sales of promotional items to members, when the sales prices of those promotional items are no more than the cost to the organization.

Flavored cigarettes banned in U.S.
Effective September 22, 2009, cigarettes that contain certain characterizing flavors are considered adulterated and the manufacture, import, and sale of these products are banned in the United States as authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA). The FSPTCA provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with regulatory authority over the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products. According to the Act:
“…a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke.”
These products can no longer be manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States.

For general information regarding the FDA’s Tobacco Program and the ban on flavored cigarettes, please refer to the FDA’s website at www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/default.htm.

In compliance with the new federal law, flavored cigarettes banned by the FSPTCA have been removed and may continue to be removed from the California Tobacco Directory by California’s Attorney General. Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensees should refer regularly to the California Tobacco Directory provided at www.ag.ca.gov/tobacco/directory.php for a product list of cigarette manufacturers and brand families that are authorized for sale in California.

It is illegal for distributors to affix a California tax stamp on packages of cigarettes or pay the tax on roll-your-own product unless the manufacturer and the brand family are listed in the California Tobacco Directory. Sales of cigarettes and roll-your-own products that are not listed in the California Tobacco Directory are prohibited and could be seized by federal, state, or local law enforcement authorities.

Sales of toasted sandwiches are taxable
Sandwich shops, delicatessens, and other retailers that sell sandwiches, beverages and other hot food need to be aware that to-go sales of hot prepared food products are taxable (see exception below for hot bakery items). A food product is considered a hot food product if it is heated to a temperature above room temperature (for example, grilling or toasting a sandwich, dipping a sandwich in hot gravy, or using infrared lights, steam tables, or microwave ovens). Examples of hot prepared food products include hot sandwiches, pizza, barbecued chicken, soup, consommé, bouillon, steak, and so forth.

Food is considered “hot” even if it has cooled by the time of sale since it was intended to be sold as a hot food. If your customer buys a cold food product to go and heats the food product in a microwave oven that is accessible to the public, the sale is not taxable. It is considered a sale of a cold food product to go.

Exception: Sales of hot bakery goods are not taxable when sold to go, unless they are sold as part of a combination package. For example, a combination of hot coffee and a doughnut for a single price is taxable because the combination package includes a hot food or hot beverage. For additional information see publication 22, Dining and Beverage Industry.

Are you familiar with the BOE’s website?
A wealth of information is available on the BOE’s website at www.boe.ca.gov.
On our website you’ll find an overview of the BOE’s organization, the professional history and qualifications of each Board Member, including the State Controller, who is the fifth, ex-officio, Board Member. Sections about the tax programs administered by the BOE are provided as well. These programs include: Sales and Use, Property, Timber, Fuel, and Excise Taxes, and Environmental Fees.

We also offer services to assist you! Our Help Center pages contain answers to frequently asked questions and if you have a question not addressed on the FAQ page, we provide a toll-free number for our Taxpayer Information Section so you can speak with a live person for assistance. On our website, you’ll find instructions and requirements for efiling, along with the methods of making electronic payments via credit card or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). We provide access to tax returns, required forms, and reference materials such as sales and use tax regulations, and BOE publications geared to assist specific business owners (for example, restaurants, jewelers and contractors) in learning the tax requirements that pertain to each industry. Many of our publications have been translated into various foreign languages as well.

There is a section on taxpayers’ rights that includes links to our Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate Office, the Tax Appellate Program, Offer in Compromise, and our Settlement Program. The Tax Appellate Program is the conduit to file appeals as the result of a BOE audit. The Offer in Compromise Program allows you to make a proposal to pay the BOE an amount that is less than the full amount of the tax or fee due on an account. Our Settlement Program provides that while you are pursuing an appeal (such as a petition for redetermination, an administrative protest, or a claim for refund) you may be able to propose a settlement of your case.

You will also find the dates and locations for future Board and Committee meetings. Should your interests focus on current or past legislation, links to these are also available. A yearly index and archived copies of the Tax Information Bulletin are also available for reference.

We are always working to develop new content that will be useful to people doing business in California. We hope you will explore and access the valuable information provided on the BOE’s website.

BOE’s online educational seminars

The BOE announced the expansion of its available online educational products to include the virtual replication of Small Business Fairs and Nonprofit Seminars.

These online products are a cost effective, convenient way for taxpayers to learn about the BOE tax programs and how to comply with California tax laws. The virtual seminars are designed specifically to enhance the in-person attention taxpayers can get through sales and use tax classes offered in BOE offices, and seminars offered throughout the state.

The BOE also offers a total virtual one-stop-shop option for Small Business Fairs and Nonprofit Seminars. The site includes links to our seminar partners: Internal Revenue Service, Franchise Tax Board, Employment Development Department, U.S. Small Business Administration, and other local, state and federal agencies. There you will find contact information, presentations, videos, audio recordings and much more!

We’re number 50!

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 | Tax News

The Sac Bee just covered that the state of California has been ranked as the worst state in the nation in regard to tax administration. The article is below:

Cal rated worst state on tax administration
California has the nation’s worst state tax administration practices, the Council on State Taxation, a corporate-backed and Washington-based tax study organization, says in a new report.

California scored a D-minus, the lowest score of any state, on an eight-criterion assessment, a notch lower than seven other “D” states. Alaska, at A-minus, scored the highest.

“It is a common truth that taxpayers will more fully and willingly comply with a tax system they perceive to be balanced, fair, and effective,” the organization said. “Taxpayers operating in a system they perceive as oppressive, unfair, or otherwise biased are less likely to voluntarily comply. The clear message to state legislatures is that they must be sensitive to the compliance implications and competitiveness concerns created by poor tax administrative rules and ineffective tax appeal systems.”

California was rated especially poorly on the independence of its tax dispute resolution process. A three-member board composed of politicians or their surrogates, the Franchise Tax Board, oversees personal and corporate tax collection. A five-member board of elected officials, the Board of Equalization, handles appeals from the Franchise Tax Board, directly collects sales taxes and oversees property tax administration.

Analyses Posted This Week by the FTB

Monday, March 15th, 2010 | Tax News

Analyses Posted This Week

Assembly Bills

  • AB 347 (Bass, et al.) Charitable Contribution Deduction Haiti Earthquake – Revised Original 01/27/10
  • AB 347 (Bass, et al.) Charitable Contribution Deduction Haiti Earthquake – FINAL
  • AB 1806 (Hagman) Exclusion Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Residence By Surviving Spouse – Introduced 02/10/10
  • AB 1983 (Torrico) Safely Surrendered Baby Fund – Introduced 02/18/10

Assembly Special Session Bills

  • ABX8 8 (Comm on Budget) Occupational And Professional License Suspension For Unpaid Tax/Abusive Tax Shelters/Financial Institution Record Match- Amended 02/17/10

Senate Special Session Bills

  • SBX6 3 (Calderon) Principal Residence Credit – Introduced 02/08/10
  • SBX8 8 (Budget Comm) Occupational And Professional License Suspension For Unpaid Tax/Abusive Tax Shelters/Financial Institution Record Match – Introduced 02/22/10
  • SBX8 29 (Steinberg, et al.) FTB, BOE & Employees In Positions Funded 95 Percent By Other Sources Than General Fund Exempt From Furloughs – Introduced 02/05/10 & Amended 03/04/10
  • SBX8 29 (Steinberg, et al.) FTB, BOE & Employees In Positions Funded 95 Percent By Other Sources Than General Fund Exempt From Furloughs – FINAL
  • SBX8 39 (Calderon) Principal Residence Credit – Introduced 02/08/10

Franchise Tax Board News for March 2010

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 | Tax News

From an updated taxpayer’s bill of rights to W-2 information, click below to find a news summary from the Franchise Tax Board for March 2010.

Click here to visit site.

In case you were wondering how many bills were introduced by the California Legislature in the past week

Monday, March 8th, 2010 | Tax News

Here’s a piece from today’s Sacramento Bee:

Legislators were apparently all too aware. The record shows that 1,321 “regular” bills were introduced between last Tuesday and Friday, 888 in the Assembly and 433 in the Senate. That breaks down to:

* 330.3 a day
* 13.8 an hour
*1.15 every five minutes

It’s also an average of 11 bills for each lawmaker, and it does not include bills introduced before last Tuesday. Nor does it include resolutions, proposed constitutional amendments or measures proposed in any of the eight special sessions that have run or are running concurrently with the regular session.

According to legislative staffers, this year’s crop was actually not too big, probably owing to the paucity of state funds. See? There’s always a silver lining…

Correa jobs package introduced in State Senate

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 | Tax News

SACRAMENTO, CA – State Senator Lou Correa (Orange County) today announced a comprehensive bipartisan legislative jobs package that contains bills separately sponsored by the Senate Democratic Caucus, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and members of the Orange County legislative delegation.

Declaring that “We need to get Californians back to work”, Senator Correa introduced Senate Bill 1010 in the regular session, Senate Bill 967, Senate Bill 42, in the eighth special session, Senate Bill 1 in the sixth special session, and jointly introduced Senate Bills 965 and 968 in the regular session.

The package’s positive impact is both statewide and focused on Orange County job retention and development, each impacting a targeted challenge.

SB 1010 and SBX8-42 would allow twenty-five (ten of which have to be in Southern California) public and private projects to apply for a “safe haven” from time consuming litigation if they have completed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process after public hearings are held in the region that the project is proposed and, upon approval of the Secretary of Business Transportation and Housing Agency.

According to the Senator, the criteria in selecting these projects shall consider the following determinants: the number and quality of jobs that will be created by the project; the amount of capital investment made by the project; and, striking a balance between projects sponsored by public and private entities.

The Orange County Senator continued by adding that the measure would not exempt the projects from the CEQA but rather helps to reduce the lengthy litigation while respecting our environmental responsibilities.

Continuing with the package’s description, Senator Correa went on to describe Senate Bill 967, a measure dubbed “California First!” which will provide employers with a five percent bid preference in exchange for ensuring that ninety percent of their workers on that contract will be California residents and taxpayers.

Senator Correa added that the measure begins to provide a level playing field with other states that provide the same incentives, and provides greater opportunities for Californians to have good paying jobs that keep tax dollars here in California.

Continuing the discussion of jobs development, the Orange County Senator who also sits on the Senate’s Business and Professions committee, jointly introduced Senate Bill 968, with Senator Negrete McLeod, (Chino) a measure which helps streamline the current process used in retraining unemployed workers to receive skills in emerging or expanding technologies and industries, while ensuring the unemployed worker continues to coordinate their unemployment funds into a seamless process. In highlighting the proposal, Senator Correa stated that “in this challenging environment, our state must be vigilant in ensuring that the labor force be prepared with the skills necessary to take this state out of this deep recession”.

Senator Correa closed out his package with a duo of bills directly impacting Orange County; Senate Bills SB 1 in the 6th special session and SB 965 in the regular session. If enacted, SB 1 would complement central Orange County’s supportive jobs development climate by further adding an additional Enterprise Zone for Orange County in Anaheim. The bill would provide for the California Department of Housing and Community Development to establish such a zone to encourage and stimulate job growth, development, and investment in the community. According to Senator Correa, the measure would provide taxpayers who invest, operate, or locate a trade or business in the targeted area with the ability to receive special tax incentives. This measure is sponsored in part by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Orange County Business Council.

The Orange County Senator went on to state that, “While the latest jobs report is encouraging, we still have nearly one in every ten adults unemployed in Orange County. It’s our job to do all we can to help grow opportunities for more and better jobs here in Orange County.”

The series of Correa employment measures will begin to be considered this week.

Senator Lou Correa represents the 34th District, which includes the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Stanton and Westminster.

Breaking News: Senate Budget Committee Approves Rollbacks on 2 Corporate Tax Benefits

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 | Tax News

The Sacramento Bee broke the story this morning regarding he senate committees limit on NOLs and getting rid of the ability to transfer tax credits between affiliated companies. Below is the story:

Democratic gas tax plan rolls back corporate tax benefits
The Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday approved rollbacks of two corporate tax benefits as part of a complex gas-tax swap to help close the state’s $19.9 billion deficit.

The committee also approved a 4.8 percent surcharge on residential and commercial property insurance, which would raise roughly $200 million for the general fund.

The Democratic proposal allows companies to apply only 68 percent of past operating losses against their income in 2010, shrinking that tax benefit and increasing state revenues from corporate taxes. Existing state law allows companies to apply 100 percent of certain past operating losses against income in 2010.

The proposal also would prevent corporations from assigning tax credits in 2010 to affiliated corporations or subsidiaries. Current state law allows that practice to occur starting this year.

Those two changes would allow the state to raise $655 million for the general fund. Democrats believe they can pass the changes on a majority-vote basis because they are decreasing taxes on gasoline by a comparable amount, theoretically making the change “revenue neutral.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed suspending those two tax benefits — among others — but only if the state failed to get enough federal help.

The California Teachers Association is gathering signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would block those tax benefits permanently.

The Senate Budget Committee passed the changes Tuesday on an 8-2 party-line vote. The full Senate and Assembly would still have to approve the plan.

The thrust of the gas-tax plan is the elimination of state sales tax on gasoline, replacing that sales tax with an excise tax on gas. That would allow the state to account for gasoline taxes in a different way that saves the state $920 million in general fund dollars. All told, the proposal would cut the deficit by nearly $1.6 billion. Drivers would save roughly 3 cents per gallon in 2010–11.

Transit agencies would lose out under the Democratic plan, but not by as much as under Schwarzenegger’s proposal. Democrats would preserve sales tax on diesel fuel, generating an estimated $313 million annually. The state also would give transit agencies $400 million for operations out of an existing transportation account.

The Democratic plan would allow local governments to place on the ballot an additional fee on gasoline to pay for transit. Voters would have to approve any such fee by a majority vote.

Republicans questioned that part of the proposal, suggesting that it was a back-door way of raising revenues without meeting requirements for a tax hike. Democrats responded by saying they were only expanding the authority of local officials.

Categories: State budget, Taxes

Posted by Kevin Yamamura

Senate Democrats unveil job plans, but no mention of Enterprise Zones

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 | Tax News

The Sacramento Bee had this article today:

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg today unveiled a Democratic plan he said would create an estimated 140,600 to 197,600 jobs inCalifornia.

Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said the Democratic Caucus in the Legislature is introducing 27 bills that are part of an employment plan “that is real, not partisan, not hype.”

He said every measure to be introduced can be approved with a majority vote, and that the jobs-creation ideas could have a “multiplier effect” by creating even more jobs.

“I think people want to see something tangible,” Steinberg said.

Among the proposals:

• — A fee stabilization bill for California’s higher education systems that would set a 5 percent cap on tuition fee hikes in any given year and require students to be given an estimated cost schedule for what it will take for them to finish their degrees.

• — A bill to promote the Employment Development Department’s “work-share program,” which allows hard-hit companies to keep some employees on at reduced salaries with the EDD makes salaries whole in anticipation of an economic recovery and re-hiring.

California companies are not participating much in this EDD program, according to Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who accompanied Steinberg and is author of this bill. The state of New York promoted its program last year, increasing business participation by more than 500 percent and reducing the number of workers needing full unemployment benefits.

• — A bill to restructure the furlough polices imposed by the governor to save money. The bill would exempt employees at the Franchise Tax Board, the State Board of Equalization and those in jobs funded at least 95 percent by sources other than the General Fund.

Steinberg hopes to revive a bill that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed last year requiring a mandatory level of renewable energy to be purchased inside California to help create jobs. The bill last year was based on a 33 percent renewable energy goal for public and private utilities by the year 2020. Last year’s proposal would have limited renewable energy credits purchased outside California to more than 25 to 30 percent of the renewable total.

The governor vetoed the bill, saying it could increase energy costs, but Steinberg said he plans to try to convince the governor to work with legislators on reviving a version this year he estimates could create 20,000 jobs.

Other proposals include:

• — A bill to fast track renewable energy projects eligible for stimulus funds. At least 11 projects are waiting for permits from state energy agencies.

• — A bill to streamline obtaining multiple permits to start businesses by starting “one-stop” permit centers through Cal-EPA. Such agencies existed in the mid-1990s to help speed up business and job creation during a an economic downturn.

• — A bill to grant a 5 percent bid preference to a company that can certify that 90 percent of employees on a government contract will be California residents. In an average year, California spends nearly $35 billion on service and consulting contracts.

Some of the bills would authorize the spending of federal funds and bond money for projects already on the books:

• — A high-speed rail bill would authorize investing $2.25 billion in recently granted federal funds to develop such a system in California, creating an estimated 50,625 jobs.

• — Two bills would authorize the state to spend $773 million in federal Qualified School Construction bonds to build schools in 43 school districts, creating an estimated 11,400 jobs.

FTB New for February 2010

Monday, February 8th, 2010 | Tax News

Top 12 tax scams

It’s a new year and a good time to remind your clients about the top tax scams. / more+

Pass-through entities must timely file original tax returns claiming new jobs tax credit in order for owners to claim the credit

A new jobs tax credit of $3,000 is available to small businesses with 20 or less employees for each additional net full-time employee hired and employed in California for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The total amount of the credit that we can allocate may not exceed $400 million, and claims must be made before a statutorily provided “cut-off” filing date. / more+

Using the Annualization Method in 2009 and 2010

Estimated tax payments have undergone many changes since we started filing season one year ago. / more+

Small Business

Timing is everything

Is your client considering making an S corporation election? Selling or exchanging 50 percent or more of the total interests in an LLC or limited partnership? / more+

Ask the Advocate

Withholding and estimate tax payment changes

This summer the California legislature again revised the estimated tax payment percentages, and also passed some clean-up legislation to clear up confusion on how wage earners with only wage withholding would meet the new estimated tax payment requirements. / more+

Inside FTB

Take a look at the changes happening here at FTB. / more+

Criminal Corner

Our monthly summary on bringing tax criminals to justice, and closing the tax gap one case at a time. / more+

Big Business

California code of civil procedure and foreclosures

Will you clarify how California civil procedures interact with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)? Specifically how does California Civil Procedure Code (CCP) Sections interact with IRC Section 108, Income from Discharge Indebtedness? / more+

 
 
Home | Newsroom | About Us | Upcoming Events | FAQ | Contact | Blog | RSS RSS
5670 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1530, Los Angeles, CA 90036, Ph: 310-402-2780, Fax: 866-381-3118
© 2010 C&I Tax Consultants. All rights reserved.