<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Report: CTP Monthly]]></title><description><![CDATA[Monthly update on key tax and business policy issues.]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/s/cal-tax-and-policy-monthly</link><generator>Substack</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 05:42:58 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><copyright><![CDATA[California Policy Report]]></copyright><language><![CDATA[en]]></language><webMaster><![CDATA[caltaxandpolicy@substack.com]]></webMaster><itunes:owner><itunes:email><![CDATA[caltaxandpolicy@substack.com]]></itunes:email><itunes:name><![CDATA[Philip MacFarlane]]></itunes:name></itunes:owner><itunes:author><![CDATA[Philip MacFarlane]]></itunes:author><googleplay:owner><![CDATA[caltaxandpolicy@substack.com]]></googleplay:owner><googleplay:email><![CDATA[caltaxandpolicy@substack.com]]></googleplay:email><googleplay:author><![CDATA[Philip MacFarlane]]></googleplay:author><itunes:block><![CDATA[Yes]]></itunes:block><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for March 2026]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-2f3</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-2f3</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:59:33 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California policy activity in March 2026 was defined by the ongoing debate over the state&#8217;s proposed wealth tax, continued implementation of major climate disclosure laws, escalating federal&#8211;state conflict over energy and environmental authority, and an executive order on the AI safeguards.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Tax</strong></h3><p><strong>Wealth Tax Debate Intensifies</strong></p><p>The debate over California&#8217;s proposed wealth tax intensified, with the UC Berkeley-POLITICO poll showing <a href="https://abc7news.com/post/proposed-time-tax-california-billionaires-assets-shows-early-support-among-voters-new-poll/18700880/">early support</a> for the tax. Key commentaries on the issue include:</p><ul><li><p>&#8220;Why California&#8217;s plan to tax billionaires is misguided,&#8221; <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7a70e187-53e6-4916-8ff4-24e2d9778998">Financial Times</a>, March 8, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Jared Walczak, &#8220;Would California&#8217;s Wealth Tax Be Temporary?,&#8221; <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-wealth-tax/">Tax Foundation</a>, March 19, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Niko Gallogly, &#8220;California&#8217;s Billionaire Tax Battle,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/business/dealbook/california-billionaire-tax.html">New York Times</a>, March 14, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Harold Meyerson, Google Man Peddles Snake Oil, <a href="https://prospect.org/2026/03/10/google-brin-california-wealth-tax-ballot-measure/">The American Prospect</a>, March 10, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Aaron With, &#8220;Why unions love the &#8216;Billionaire Tax&#8217;,&#8221; <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5779095-why-unions-love-the-billionaire-tax/">The Hill</a>, March 12, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Dan Walters, &#8220;Billionaires bolt from blue states amid tax fears, mirroring rebellion in &#8216;Atlas Shrugged&#8217; novel,&#8221; <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/dan-walters/2026/03/billionaires-bolt-tax-blue-states/">Cal Matters</a>, March 17, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Shawn Regan, &#8220;California&#8217;s Billionaire Tax Proposal Is Already Doing Damage,&#8221; <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/california-wealth-billionaire-tax">City Journal</a>, March 24, 2026.</p></li></ul><p><strong>San Diego Puts Empty Home Tax on Ballot</strong></p><p>The San Diego City Council <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/03/san-diego-will-vote-on-an-empty-home-tax-ballot-measure-0081092">agreed</a> to place an empty home tax measure on the June ballot. The measure would impose a tax on thousands of homes that are vacant for at least six months of the year. The measure is intended to discourage owners from leaving homes vacant.</p><p><strong>Labor Unions Look to Increases Taxes on California Corporations</strong></p><p>Major labor unions <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article315043984.html#storylink=cpy">launched a campaign</a> called <a href="https://www.seiu1000.org/unrigca/">UnRig California</a>, which aims to increase taxes on large corporations. The coalition supports a permanent wealth tax and various corporate tax proposals. This includes <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1790">AB 1790</a>, which would terminate California&#8217;s water&#8217;s-edge election for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2028.</p><h3><strong>Trade</strong></h3><p>California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the state filed a <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-seeks-court-order-stopping-trumps-illegal-tariffs">motion</a> to block implementation of President Trump&#8217;s latest efforts to impose tariffs on U.S. imports.</p><h3><strong>Energy and Climate</strong></h3><p><strong>CARB Approves Regulations Implementing California&#8217;s Emissions Reporting Laws</strong></p><p>The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted on February 26, 2026 to approve regulations implementing California&#8217;s landmark corporate climate disclosure laws, establishing compliance timelines and administrative rules for companies subject to the requirements. The regulations confirm that companies must submit their first emissions disclosures by August 10, 2026. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/carb-approves-regulations-implementing">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p>Companies doing business in California should now be actively building emissions inventories, internal controls, and third-party assurance processes. The compliance timeline is short relative to the scope of required data collection.</p><p><strong>California, Washington, Quebec Publish Draft Agreement on Carbon Markets</strong></p><p>California and Washington state released a draft agreement outlining how their carbon emissions trading programs could be linked. This step would expand the existing California&#8211;Qu&#233;bec cap-and-trade market and potentially create a larger West Coast carbon market. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/california-washington-quebec-publish">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Trump Administration Sues California over Electric Vehicle Mandate</strong></p><p>The Trump administration is suing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to block enforcement of the state&#8217;s vehicle emissions rules. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the state&#8217;s fleetwide CO2 emissions regulation and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate conflict with federal law governing fuel economy standards. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/trump-administration-sues-california">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Sable Offshore Restarts Pipeline Upon Trump Administration Order</strong></p><p>The Trump administration directed Sable Offshore Corp. on March 13, 2026 to restart the oil pipeline system serving the Santa Ynez Unit offshore oil field, citing national security concerns and the need to strengthen domestic energy supply on the West Coast. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/trump-administration-directs-sable">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p>In response, California launched a legal effort to stop Sable Offshore Corp.&#8217;s restart of the Las Flores Pipeline System serving the offshore Santa Ynez Unit. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/california-brings-multiple-legal">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation</strong></p><p>Governor Gavin Newsom signed <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/03/30/as-trump-rolls-back-protections-governor-newsom-signs-first-of-its-kind-executive-order-to-strengthen-ai-protections-and-responsible-use/">Executive Order N-5-26</a>, directing state agencies to develop a plan for new state contracting processes and best practices for artificial intelligence (AI). The practices include vetting companies based in part on how they attest and explain their policies and safeguards to protect the public from exploitation or distribution of illegal content; models that display bias or lack technology to prevent such bias; and violations of civil rights and free speech.</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for February 2026]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-c7f</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-c7f</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 17:33:36 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>February developments underscored the evolving tax, enforcement, and transaction landscape in California. A proposal to terminate the water&#8217;s-edge election beginning in 2028 could materially affect multinational tax modeling. Wealth-tax ballot efforts continued, local governments pursued new revenue streams, regulators announced the largest CCPA settlement to date, and a newly enacted state premerger notification law will expand deal-closing requirements starting in 2027.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Tax</strong></h3><p><strong>State corporate income tax bill targets water&#8217;s-edge election starting in 2028</strong></p><p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1790">AB 1790</a>, introduced on February 10, 2026, would terminate California&#8217;s water&#8217;s-edge election for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2028, shifting affected taxpayers toward mandatory worldwide combined reporting (unless another exception applies). For multinationals with California filing groups built around water&#8217;s-edge planning, this is a material model change (effective-tax-rate, provision, and cash-tax forecasting). Even if the bill does not advance quickly, it is an early signal for 2026 legislative risk that can affect transaction diligence and long-range tax planning.</p><p>Republicans expressed their opposition to the bill. &#8220;One problem is if that bill passes, we will be the only state in the union that gets rid of that Waters Edge feature,&#8221; Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_a5f8e36e-4cd4-4744-9729-af32f8a24d6f.html">said</a>. &#8220;This isn&#8217;t exactly a way to try to overcome our business-unfriendly environment. I think it would be very unwise.&#8221;</p><p><strong>Los Angeles County sales tax headed to June ballot</strong></p><p>Los Angeles County officials <a href="https://abc7.com/story/los-angeles-county-supervisors-vote-add-sales-tax-hike-health-care-june-ballot/18581941/">advanced a temporary half-cent general sales tax</a> for the June 2026 ballot, with public estimates of roughly $1 billion per year in revenue to support health care services. One supervisor publicly opposed the measure on the grounds that local taxpayers should not backfill for federal funding reductions. If approved, the measure would add another layer to California&#8217;s already complex local rate environment and could affect point-of-sale systems, invoicing, and tax engines. Companies with significant taxable sales into Los Angeles County should flag potential rate changes and downstream pricing/contracting impacts (especially for long-term procurement where &#8220;tax change&#8221; clauses matter).</p><p><strong>Ballot proposal to exempt seniors from property taxes approved for signature gathering</strong></p><p>A ballot initiative on whether to exempt homeowners age 60 and older from paying property taxes on their primary residences is <a href="https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/california-ballot-proposal-would-exempt-seniors-from-paying-property-taxes/103-debc9c29-e927-4b9c-b750-365bb3a4e06c">cleared to gather signatures</a> in support.</p><p><strong>Wealth tax debate continues</strong></p><p>California Democrats are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5743672-california-democrats-billionaire-tax/">split</a> over the Billionaire Tax Act, which would assess a 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires to fund health care programs.</p><p><em>Commentary and analysis</em></p><ul><li><p>Jared Walczak, &#8220;California can learn from European countries that tried wealth taxes,&#8221; <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/wealth-taxes-europe-countries-california/">CalMatters</a>, February 19, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Maureen Kennedy, &#8220;Relocation threats shouldn&#8217;t stop California from taxing billionaires,&#8221; <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5754305-california-billionaire-tax-act/">The Hill</a>, February 26, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Eliyahu Kamisher, &#8220;Even States With No Income Tax Are Flirting With Taxing the Rich,&#8221; <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-27/california-wealth-tax-push-leads-call-for-new-levies-in-other-states?sref=HyWy1EF9">Bloomberg</a>, February 27, 2026.</p></li><li><p>Paris Barraza, &#8220;What is the California Billionaire Tax Act? Is it actually happening?,&#8221; <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/california/2026/02/20/ca-billionaire-tax-proposal-trump-healthcare-cuts/88756921007/">USA TODAY</a>, February 20, 2026</p></li><li><p>Steve Forbes, &#8220;California&#8217;s Proposed Wealth Tax Is A Result Of The Dollar&#8217;s Devaluation,&#8221; <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2026/02/11/californias-proposed-wealth-tax-is-a-result-of-the-dollars-devaluation/">Forbes</a>, February 11, 2026.</p></li></ul><p>California Congressman Kevin Kiley introduced the <a href="https://d12t4t5x3vyizu.cloudfront.net/kiley.house.gov/uploads/2026/02/Keep-Jobs-in-California-Act-Text.pdf">Keep Jobs in California Act of 2026 </a>, which would prohibit any state from imposing a retroactive tax on the assets of individuals who no longer reside in the state.</p><h3><strong>Consumer Privacy</strong></h3><p><strong>California announces largest CCPA settlement to date</strong></p><p>On February 11, Attorney General Rob Bonta <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-wont-let-it-go-attorney-general-bonta-announces-275-million">announced</a> a $2.75 million settlement with Disney tied to alleged failures to properly honor consumer opt-out signals across devices/services, positioning it as a major enforcement marker for cross-platform privacy controls.</p><h3><strong>Antitrust</strong></h3><p><strong>California adopts state-level premerger notification law, effective in 2027</strong></p><p>Governor Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB25">SB 25</a>, the California Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, requiring certain parties that make federal HSR filings to submit a copy of their filing materials to the California Attorney General starting January 1, 2027.</p><p><strong>California to review Paramount-Warner merger</strong></p><p>State Attorney General Rob Bonta said California is already investigating the Paramount Skydance merger with Warner Bros. &#8220;As the epicenter of the entertainment industry, California has a special interest in protecting competition,&#8221; Bonta <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/california-now-biggest-obstacle-paramounts-warner-bros-takeover-2026-02-27/">said</a> in a social media post.</p><h3><strong>Budget and Fiscal Issues</strong></h3><p><em>Commentary and analysis</em></p><ul><li><p>Dan Walters, &#8220;Here&#8217;s how Newsom&#8217;s spending binge outstripped revenues, creating California&#8217;s chronic deficit,&#8221; <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/newsom-spending-california-chronic-deficit/">CalMatters</a>, February 13, 2026.</p></li></ul><h3><strong>Energy and Climate</strong></h3><p><strong>New Bills Target a Range of Energy Issues, with a Focus on Affordability</strong></p><p>Legislators introduced an array of new legislation in the 2026 legislative session. With the February 20 deadline for new bills, several policy themes begin to emerge with several areas continuing from the 2025 session. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/new-bills-target-a-range-of-energy">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Bill Would Expand CARB Authority over Indirect Emissions Sources</strong></p><p>California Assemblymember Robert Garcia introduced legislation to expand the state&#8217;s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1777">AB 1777</a> would empower the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations targeting emissions linked to &#8220;indirect sources,&#8221; which are facilities and land uses that attract significant mobile emissions but have historically fallen outside direct regulatory control by state authorities. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/bill-would-expand-carb-authority">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Bill to Hold Oil Companies Liable for Climate Disasters Reintroduced</strong></p><p>Senator Scott Wiener reintroduced legislation to authorize civil lawsuits against oil companies and other &#8220;responsible parties&#8221; for damages from climate change. <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB982">SB 982</a>, introduced on February 5, 2026, would authorize the state attorney general to bring a civil action against a responsible party for &#8220;climate-attributable damage.&#8221; SB 982 is a revised successor to <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/bill-to-authorize-suing-oil-companies">SB 222</a>, which was introduced in 2025. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/bill-to-hold-oil-companies-liable">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>CARB adopts initial climate disclosure regulations</strong></p><p>CARB <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-approves-climate-transparency-regulation-entities-doing-business-california?utm_source=chatgpt.com">approved</a> a climate transparency regulation package tied to SB 253 and SB 261 at its February 26, 2026 board meeting, including a fee structure and setting August 10, 2026 as the first-year SB 253 reporting deadline (with initial-year reporting limited to Scope 1 and Scope 2, per CARB&#8217;s announcement).</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for January 2026]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-bee</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-bee</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:02:00 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Key tax and policy developments from January include budget issues, an update on Florida&#8217;s challenge to California&#8217;s tax apportionment rules, energy and climate updates, and proposed changes to the state&#8217;s antitrust law.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Revenue and Budget</strong></h3><p><strong>AI-Driven Capital Gains Help Narrow Budget Deficit</strong></p><p>Governor Gavin Newsom&#8217;s recently released <strong>2026&#8211;27 state budget</strong> projects a modest deficit (approximately $2.9 billion) and includes revenue adjustments based on updated economic forecasts. Stronger-than-expected personal income tax receipts tied to tech and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-09/newsoms-budget-plan-banks-on-strong-revenues-despite-fiscal-risks">AI-related market gains</a> helped narrow the deficit. At the same time, the <a href="https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5101">Legislative Analyst&#8217;s Office</a> and other observers have <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-01-07/californias-growing-dependence-on-ai-tax-revenue-creates-budget-volatility">warned</a> that the state&#8217;s revenue picture <a href="https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/01/california-tech-tax-revenue/">remains sensitive</a> to equity-market swings, with downside scenarios far larger than the administration&#8217;s baseline. Pressure on core programs &#8212; especially health and human services &#8212; will frame discussions over revenue policy and structural reforms.</p><h3><strong>Tax Litigation</strong></h3><p><strong>Florida&#8217;s Supreme Court Challenge to California&#8217;s Corporate Apportionment Receives Business Support</strong></p><p>Taxpayer and business groups have <a href="https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/supreme-court-should-hear-florida-challenge-to-california-tax-policy-ntuf-brief-says">filed briefs</a> urging the Supreme Court to hear Florida&#8217;s case challenging a California tax apportionment regulation. Florida argues that the rules can result in unconstitutional extraterritorial taxation and discrimination against out-of-state activity.</p><h3><strong>Energy and Climate</strong></h3><p><strong>CARB Proposes Amendments to California&#8217;s Cap-and-Trade Rules</strong></p><p>The California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued a set of proposed regulatory amendments to the rules governing California&#8217;s greenhouse gas trading program, now referred to as Cap-and-Invest. The proposal is designed to realign the program with California&#8217;s long-term climate objectives, including the statutory goal of achieving economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/carb-proposes-amendments-to-californias">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Trump Administration Sues to Overturn California Oil Setback, Citing Federal Preemption</strong></p><p>The Trump administration is suing California to pause and overturn the state&#8217;s 2022 oil drilling setback law, known as SB 1137. The administration is arguing that the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act preempts the law. The administration notes that the law would &#8220;knock out about one-third of all federally authorized oil and gas leases in California.&#8221; The lawsuit asks the court to declare SB 1137 unconstitutional and seeks an injunction against its enforcement. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/trump-administration-sues-to-overturn">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><h3><strong>Antitrust and competition</strong></h3><p><strong>CLRC Recommends Changes to California Antitrust Law</strong></p><p>The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) <a href="https://clrc.ca.gov/pub/2026/MM26-10.pdf">recommended</a> creating new prohibitions against single-firm conduct in California&#8217;s antitrust law. The recommendations would change how the state approaches predatory pricing issues and &#8220;net effects&#8221; balancing.</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for December 2025]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-business-policy</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-business-policy</guid><pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:55:00 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Key tax and policy developments from December include tax administration guidance, appellate rulings, employment mandates, and climate-compliance preparation.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Tax</strong></h3><p><strong>California Office of Tax Appeals Rejects Interest Relief Claim</strong></p><p>In a December opinion, the Office of Tax Appeals denied a request to refund more than $440,000 in interest. The tribunal held that interest continues accruing on an outstanding deficiency even when the state holds excess funds from overpayments applied to other tax years. The ruling underscores the tribunal&#8217;s narrow reading of interest-relief authority and highlights the financial exposure associated with unresolved assessments. (see <a href="https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/california-tax-tribunal-rejects-couples-bid-for-interest-relief">Bloomberg Tax</a>.)</p><p><strong>California Court of Appeal Upholds Los Angeles Transfer Tax</strong></p><p>An appellate panel <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/la-mansion-tax-survives-legal-challenge/">upheld</a> Los Angeles&#8217; voter-approved transfer tax on high-value real estate transactions, rejecting procedural challenges to the initiative. The decision cements the durability of the local revenue measure and reinforces judicial deference to properly enacted ballot initiatives.</p><p><strong>California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Clarifies Sales and Use Tax Appeals</strong></p><p>The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) issued detailed procedural guidance outlining the full sequence for disputing sales and use tax and special tax determinations. The publication addresses petitions for redetermination, appeals conferences, refund claims, settlement proposals, and escalation to the Office of Tax Appeals. The guidance emphasizes strict filing deadlines and documentation requirements. For taxpayers, the update reinforces that procedural compliance&#8212;timing, substantiation, and format&#8212;can be dispositive in audit disputes. (see <a href="https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/california-cdtfa-publishes-guidance-on-appeals-procedures-for-sales-and-use-taxes">Bloomberg Tax</a>.)</p><h3><strong>Budgetary and Fiscal Issues</strong></h3><p><strong>California State Auditor Report Intensifies Scrutiny</strong></p><p>A California State Auditor <a href="https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/I2025-1/">report</a> identified tens of billions of dollars in misused or insufficiently tracked public funds across multiple programs. While the report does not directly impose new compliance mandates, it is likely to influence legislative oversight, reporting standards, and audit practices&#8212;particularly for businesses receiving state funds or contracting with public agencies.</p><h3><strong>Employment and Workforce Regulation</strong></h3><p><strong>2026 Employment Laws Take Effect</strong></p><p>A series of new California employment statutes and regulatory adjustments take effect on January 1, 2026, expanding employer obligations in wage standards, employee notices, employment agreements, and workforce-reduction procedures. <a href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/new-california-employment-laws-expand">Read more</a>.</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly: What Businesses Should Know]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for November 2025]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-7de</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly-7de</guid><pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 20:21:00 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Key tax and policy developments from November include a court decision on local tax authority, administrative forum dynamics, and emerging compliance requirements in climate disclosure and tax administration services.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Tax Litigation</strong></h3><p><strong>Local Tax Measures Under Judicial Scrutiny</strong></p><p>In Sacramento, a superior court <a href="https://img.lbpost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/09081805/cu-25wm000047-2861d3ac-41a9-4187-9d18-596e3a50c63f5-502089-5gew5o7e-037530-oWGTgoWf.pdf">blocked</a> the City of <strong>Long Beach from accelerating a voter-approved sales tax increase</strong>, finding that adjusting the implementation timeline would disregard the express terms of the ballot measure. The ruling reinforces that local tax measures must adhere strictly to voter-approved language and timelines, underscoring judicial willingness to enforce procedural limits on municipal revenue actions.</p><p><strong>Water District Fees Struck Down as Unconstitutional Taxes</strong></p><p>The <strong>California Court of Appeal</strong> <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/e081996.html">upheld</a> a lower court&#8217;s finding that groundwater replenishment charges imposed by the <strong>Coachella Valley Water District</strong> were unconstitutional because they bore no reasonable relationship to benefits received. The decision ordered refunds totaling more than $13 million and emphasized that agencies must justify differential charges across geographic areas when they resemble taxes.</p><p>For businesses subject to utility, water, or special assessments, the decision highlights judicial scrutiny over fee structures that may mask tax-like effects without clear benefit allocations.</p><h3><strong>Regulatory and Compliance </strong></h3><p><strong>Appeals Court Halts California Climate Risk Law</strong></p><p>A federal appeals court granted an injunction against one of California&#8217;s climate reporting laws. The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have challenged the laws on First Amendment grounds and have sought to block implementation of the laws while their lawsuit proceeds. (see <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/appeals-court-grants-injunction-against">California Energy Journal</a>.)</p><p><strong>Business Groups Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Pause California Climate Law</strong></p><p>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups filed an emergency appeal on November 15, 2025, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to put California&#8217;s climate reporting laws on hold while <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/business-groups-challenge-california">legal challenges</a> continue, the AP <a href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-california-newsom-supreme-court-559597f5196116d567ad234cc5397b11">reported</a>. The laws take effect January 1, 2026. (see <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/business-groups-petition-scotus-to">California Energy Journal</a>.)</p><h3><strong>Revenue and Tax Policy</strong></h3><p><strong>Budget Pressures Persist</strong></p><p>Recent reporting underscored that although state revenues have increased&#8212;partly due to gains in capital and technology sectors&#8212;the uptick is <strong>insufficient to close California&#8217;s structural budget gap</strong>. Continued volatility in income and sales tax collections suggests policymakers may revisit revenue measures, tax incentives, and enforcement priorities in the 2026 legislative cycle. (see Dan Walters, &#8220;California sees revenue uptick, but not enough to erase its chronic budget deficit, <a href="https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/11/california-revenue-budget-deficit/">CalMatters</a>, November 19, 2025; Emily Hamann, &#8220;AI boom leads to windfall tax revenues &#8211; but no tech job growth for California,&#8221; <a href="https://pro.stateaffairs.com/ca/ai-tech/ai-investment-california-economy">State Affairs</a>, November 26, 2025).</p><p><strong>Property Tax</strong></p><p>Renewed attention surfaced around proposals to revisit California&#8217;s treatment of inherited property under Proposition 19. There is a <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/11/30/third-attempt-to-repeal-prop-19s-tax-burden-on-inherited-property-aims-for-2026-ballot/">third campaign</a> to <a href="https://forcalifornians.com/">repeal the inheritance</a> portion of the proposition that raised property taxes. This is the third repeal campaign, with the first two in 2022 and 2024. &#8220;Fix Prop 19 to Save Our Children&#8217;s Future&#8221; must still receive enough signatures to make the November 2026 ballot.</p><h3><strong>Climate and Energy</strong></h3><p><strong>Appeals Court Halts California Climate Risk Law</strong></p><p>A federal appeals court granted an injunction against one of California&#8217;s climate reporting laws. The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have challenged the laws on First Amendment grounds and have sought to block implementation of the laws while their lawsuit proceeds. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/appeals-court-grants-injunction-against">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Interior Offshore Oil Drilling Plan Includes Six Potential California Lease Areas</strong></p><p>The Department of the Interior <a href="https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-launches-expansive-11th-national-offshore-leasing-program-advance-us-energy">released</a> a <a href="https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/national-program/11th_National_OCS_Program_1stAnalysis_and_Proposal.pdf?VersionId=Ra4ABPyBW3Ne.tmmYdaUbehzBqzoWHXB">draft proposal</a> to lease approximately 1.27 billion acres in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), including in six areas off the coast of California. The draft proposal, released on November 20, 2025, follows <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/trump-offshore-drilling-plan-focuses">reports</a> on a leaked draft of the plan earlier this month. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/interior-offshore-drilling-plan-includes">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>Business Groups Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Pause California Climate Law</strong></p><p>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups filed an emergency appeal on November 15, 2025, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to put California&#8217;s climate reporting laws on hold while <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/business-groups-challenge-california">legal challenges</a> continue. The laws take effect January 1, 2026. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/business-groups-petition-scotus-to">Read more</a> at the <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly: What Businesses Should Know]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for October 2025]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-monthly</guid><pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2025 16:43:00 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Key tax and policy developments from October include a multistate constitutional challenge to California&#8217;s tax system, legislation to update California&#8217;s conformity with the federal tax code, and major clean-energy incentives.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3>Tax Legislation</h3><p><strong>California Updates Federal Tax Conformity</strong></p><p>California enacted one of its most consequential tax changes in a decade by updating its Internal Revenue Code conformity date from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2025, through enactment of <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB711">SB 711</a>. This change aligns California with a wide range of federal provisions enacted over the past 10 years, while preserving California-specific deviations. Notably, the state does not conform to changes enacted under the mid-2025 &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill Act,&#8221; underscoring California&#8217;s selective approach to federal alignment. <a href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-updates-federal-tax-conformity">Read more</a>.</p><h3>Tax Litigation</h3><p><strong>Florida Seeks Supreme Court Review of California Tax System</strong></p><p>Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has <a href="https://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrelease/attorney-general-james-uthmeier-files-supreme-court-complaint-against-california">petitioned</a> the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge alleging that California&#8217;s tax system unconstitutionally penalizes multistate corporations, particularly those that relocate or expand operations across state lines.</p><p>The complaint argues that California&#8217;s apportionment and sourcing framework discriminates against interstate commerce by effectively increasing tax burdens on companies with multi-state footprints. While the legal merits remain uncertain&#8212;and Supreme Court review is discretionary&#8212;the filing highlights growing interstate friction over aggressive state tax regimes. The case could reopen dormant Commerce Clause questions around state income taxation,</p><h3>Clean Energy and Advanced Manufacturing Incentives</h3><p><strong>Clean Energy Credit Payments Excluded from Income</strong></p><p>California enacted <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB302">SB 302</a> to ensure clean energy developers can fully benefit from federal refundable and transferable tax credits. The law excludes from California taxable income:</p><ul><li><p>Direct pay refunds received under IRC section 6417</p></li><li><p>Payments received for transferred credits under IRC section 6418</p></li></ul><p>The exclusion applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2031, providing planning certainty for renewable energy and infrastructure developers.</p><p><strong>Expanded Sales Tax Exclusions for Energy and Manufacturing</strong></p><p>California extended its sales and use tax exclusion for qualifying renewable energy and advanced manufacturing equipment through January 1, 2028. <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB86">SB 86</a> also expands eligibility to include nuclear fusion generation facilities.</p><p>Large employers seeking the exclusion must certify compliance with specified labor standards beginning in 2026, reinforcing the state&#8217;s linkage between tax incentives and workforce policy.</p><h3>Property Tax</h3><p><strong>Solar Property Tax Exclusion Clarified</strong></p><p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB710">SB 710</a> revised California&#8217;s active solar energy system property tax exclusion by removing the prior fixed sunset date. Systems qualifying before January 1, 2027, retain the exclusion indefinitely unless ownership changes.</p><p>Related legislation provides property owners with a three-year window to file claims retroactively, reducing forfeiture risk due to administrative delay.</p><p><strong>Property Tax Relief Following California Fires</strong></p><p>California enacted a package of bills extending deadlines and preserving property tax benefits for owners affected by recent wildfires, particularly in Los Angeles County.</p><p>Key provisions include:</p><ul><li><p>Extended timeframes to transfer base-year property values to replacement homes</p></li><li><p>Expanded deadlines for intergenerational transfer claims</p></li><li><p>Additional assessor discretion for disaster-related reassessments</p></li></ul><p>These measures provide flexibility for rebuilding and succession planning while preserving Proposition 13 protections.</p><h3>Wealth Tax</h3><p><strong>Wealth Tax Proposals Resurface</strong></p><p>October also saw renewed attention to proposed ballot initiatives targeting ultra-high-net-worth individuals through a one-time &#8220;billionaire tax.&#8221; While not yet enacted, the proposals signal continued pressure to use targeted wealth taxes to address fiscal and housing challenges. Businesses and executives should expect renewed debate heading into the 2026 election cycle.</p><h3>Climate and Energy</h3><p><strong>Newsom Signs Bill to Allow Sale of E15 Gasoline</strong></p><p>Governor Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB30">AB 30</a>, which allows E15 fuel, an additional blend of gasoline, to be sold in California while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) studies its impact on clean air requirements. E15 is widely accepted as a way to reduce gasoline prices without adding environmental harm. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/newsom-sign-bill-to-allow-sale-of">Read more</a> at <em>California Energy Journal</em>.</p><p><strong>California Sets Standards for EV Charger Reliability</strong></p><p>The California Energy Commission (CEC) voted unanimously to require publicly funded fast chargers for electric vehicles (EV) to be functional 97% of the time. This applies to chargers built in 2024 or later. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/california-sets-standards-for-ev">Read more</a><em> </em>at <em>California Energy Journal.</em></p><p><strong>ExxonMobil Challenges California Climate Reporting Laws on Speech Grounds</strong></p><p>ExxonMobil is challenging California&#8217;s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting laws as a violation of the company&#8217;s right to free speech. The company is asking the court to block implementation of SB 253 and SB 261, scheduled to take effect in 2026. Exxon filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 24, 2025. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/exxonmobil-challenges-california">Read more</a> at <em>California Energy Journal.</em></p><p><strong>Trump to Open California Coast to Offshore Oil Drilling</strong></p><p>The Trump administration plans to open large areas of the east and west coasts and Alaska to offshore oil drilling. The new areas in federal waters are part of the administration&#8217;s proposed five-year offshore oil drilling program and would include areas previously withdrawn for environmental protection. The plan would open lease sales in federal waters off Alaska in 2026, the coasts of southern and central California in 2027, and along the Atlantic Coast in 2028. <a href="https://www.californiaenergytransition.com/p/trump-to-open-california-coast-to">Read more</a> at <em>California Energy Journal.</em></p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report</em> is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[California Tax and Policy Monthly: What Businesses Should Know]]></title><description><![CDATA[Update for the third quarter of 2025]]></description><link>https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-developments</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/p/california-tax-and-policy-developments</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 22:13:00 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q4LC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F00af6901-3fd1-4e89-85ab-fb33951efa9a_184x184.png" length="0" type="image/jpeg"/><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A series of legislative, regulatory, and judicial actions in late 2025 will shape California tax and business considerations heading into 2026. Below is a concise roundup of the most consequential tax and policy developments, including changes to pass-through taxation and apportionment rules, new employment mandates, and regulation of emerging technology.</p><p class="button-wrapper" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe now&quot;,&quot;action&quot;:null,&quot;class&quot;:null}" data-component-name="ButtonCreateButton"><a class="button primary" href="https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?"><span>Subscribe now</span></a></p><h3><strong>Tax Policy and Administration</strong></h3><p><strong>Extension of the Elective Pass-Through Entity Tax</strong></p><p>As part of California&#8217;s 2025 budget package, Governor Gavin Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB132">SB 132</a>, extending the state&#8217;s elective pass-through entity (PTE) tax for five additional years. The regime, originally scheduled to sunset after the 2025 tax year, will now apply to taxable years ending before January 1, 2031.</p><p>The extension allows partnerships and S corporations to continue paying entity-level tax and claiming a corresponding owner-level credit, preserving a state-level workaround to the federal SALT deduction cap. SB 132 also modifies the prepayment mechanics. While the June 15 payment date remains relevant, entities that miss the deadline may still make the election, subject to a credit reduction equal to 12.5% of the unpaid or underpaid amount. Fiscal-year filers receive limited transitional relief.</p><p>For pass-through businesses, the extension provides planning certainty through the end of the decade, but increases the importance of payment timing and cash-flow management.</p><p><strong>Financial Institutions Required to Use Single-Sales-Factor Apportionment</strong></p><p>SB 132 also eliminates a long-standing apportionment option for banks and financial institutions. Beginning with taxable years starting on or after January 1, 2025, businesses deriving more than 50% of gross receipts from banking or financial activities may no longer use an equally weighted three-factor formula.</p><p>Instead, these taxpayers must apportion income using a single-sales-factor methodology, aligning them with most other California taxpayers. For institutions with significant California customer activity but limited in-state payroll or property, the change may materially increase California tax exposure.</p><p><strong>Franchise Tax Board Rulings and New Reporting Requirements</strong></p><p>In July, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) issued <a href="https://www.ftb.ca.gov/tax-pros/law/legal-rulings/2025-01.pdf">Legal Ruling 2025-1</a> addressing the treatment of Deferred Intercompany Stock Accounts (DISA) in certain nonrecognition transactions. The ruling clarifies how basis adjustments apply in multistate corporate structures, adding complexity for groups engaging in internal reorganizations.</p><p>Separately, the FTB introduced new disclosure requirements aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of specific tax expenditures. Taxpayers claiming certain deductions, credits, or exclusions on 2024 returns may be required to file new informational forms documenting usage and outcomes. These reporting changes reflect increased legislative scrutiny of tax incentives and may raise audit or compliance risks.</p><p><strong>Revised Market-Based Sourcing Rules for Intangibles</strong></p><p>The California Franchise Tax Board <a href="https://www.ftb.ca.gov/tax-pros/law/final-regulations/FTB-Title-18-Div-3-Amend-Art-2_5%20Sect%2025136_2.pdf">finalized amendments</a> to its market-based sourcing regulations governing receipts from intangible property, with the updated rules taking effect for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.</p><p>The revisions place greater emphasis on identifying where the customer receives the benefit of an intangible, rather than relying on legal domicile or contract terms. While described as clarifications, the changes may shift income into California for businesses deriving revenue from licensing, digital services, or technology-enabled offerings.</p><p>Multistate taxpayers with significant intangible revenue should reassess sourcing methodologies and documentation well before the 2026 filing season.</p><h3><strong>Property Tax and Disaster-Related Relief</strong></h3><p><strong>Hotel Valuation and Enterprise Intangibles</strong></p><p>In a significant property tax decision, the California Supreme Court <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2594196&amp;doc_no=S280000&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmLkw4WyBdSCNNUENJQFg0UDxTKyJeRzpTMCAgCg%3D%3D">ruled</a> that county assessors may include both transient occupancy tax receipts and certain upfront payments when valuing hotels under the income-capitalization method.</p><p>The Court concluded that Los Angeles&#8217;s transient occupancy tax and a substantial &#8220;key money&#8221; payment constituted income from the use of the real property itself. However, the Court also held that enterprise-level intangibles&#8212;such as brand goodwill, food-and-beverage operations, and an assembled workforce&#8212;must be identified and excluded from assessed value.</p><p>The decision reinforces the importance of separating real property income from operating business value in hotel assessments statewide.</p><p><strong>Expanded Income Tax Exclusion for Wildfire Settlements</strong></p><p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB159">SB 159</a>, enacted in September, broadened and clarified California&#8217;s exclusion from gross income for qualified wildfire settlement payments. The exclusion applies retroactively to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and extends through January 1, 2030.</p><p>Recent amendments refine eligibility definitions to reduce uncertainty around which payments qualify, including amounts tied to property damage, relocation costs, and other wildfire-related losses. Businesses and individuals affected by California wildfires should review settlement agreements and prior filings to assess refund or amendment opportunities.</p><p><strong>Permanent Extension of Non-Resident Alien Filing Provisions</strong></p><p>Separate legislation permanently extends administrative provisions affecting non-resident aliens with California-source income. Eligible taxpayers may continue to elect inclusion in group non-resident returns instead of filing individually, and estimated tax payment requirements have been eliminated for those making the election. The changes simplify compliance for employers and international assignees alike.</p><p><strong>Federal Trade Signals Affecting California Industries</strong></p><p>Former President Donald Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115287691323395767">renewed threats</a> in late September to impose a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States, arguing that foreign incentives have displaced domestic production, particularly in California.</p><p>The announcement lacked detail, and no executive order or regulatory guidance has been issued. While speculative, the proposal bears watching for studios, distributors, and investors with cross-border production or financing arrangements.</p><p><strong>Employment and Workforce Policy</strong></p><p>As the 2025 legislative session closed, dozens of workplace-focused bills awaited gubernatorial action ahead of the October signing deadline. Many measures would expand employee protections, increase employer reporting obligations, or enhance enforcement authority.</p><p>Separately, several employment laws enacted earlier in the year will take effect in 2026, covering wage and hour standards, paid leave mandates, and personnel record requirements. Collectively, these changes continue California&#8217;s trajectory toward broader employee protections and higher compliance costs.</p><h3><strong>Local Authority, Small Business, and Innovation</strong></h3><p><strong>Small Business Procurement and Licensing</strong></p><p>Legislative activity during the summer months highlighted proposals to expand small business participation in public contracting. SB 781, though not enacted, would have authorized local Small Business Utilization Programs with participation targets and reporting requirements, signaling ongoing interest in procurement reform.</p><p>Other measures addressing licensing, cannabis regulation, lodging taxes, and local revenue authority advanced through committee, underscoring continued legislative focus on small business regulation.</p><p><strong>Artificial Intelligence Transparency Requirements</strong></p><p>In September, California enacted SB 53, establishing one of the nation&#8217;s first transparency regimes for advanced artificial intelligence systems. The law applies to companies meeting defined revenue and model-complexity thresholds and requires public disclosures of risk assessments, safety practices, and significant incidents.</p><p>The statute also includes whistleblower protections and reporting obligations, positioning California as an early mover in AI governance and adding compliance considerations for large technology developers.</p><div class="subscription-widget-wrap-editor" data-attrs="{&quot;url&quot;:&quot;https://www.caltaxandpolicy.com/subscribe?&quot;,&quot;text&quot;:&quot;Subscribe&quot;,&quot;language&quot;:&quot;en&quot;}" data-component-name="SubscribeWidgetToDOM"><div class="subscription-widget show-subscribe"><div class="preamble"><p class="cta-caption"><em>California Tax and Policy Report i</em>s a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.</p></div><form class="subscription-widget-subscribe"><input type="email" class="email-input" name="email" placeholder="Type your email&#8230;" tabindex="-1"><input type="submit" class="button primary" value="Subscribe"><div class="fake-input-wrapper"><div class="fake-input"></div><div class="fake-button"></div></div></form></div></div><p></p>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>