Chapter President

Laura Strombom, EA MBA
All About Numbers Inc
4512 Feather River Dr Ste G
Stockton, CA 95219-6563
209.955.2244

Annual Meeting

The 2013 California Chapter's Annual Membership Meeting is planned for mid November. Watch for more details in Chapter Weekly and here.

California Board of Accountancy and Senate Bill 459

The following information was emailed to all members in California:

1) We received information from the California Society of Accounting & Tax Professionals (CSATP) that we feel might be of interest to you.

On September 22, 2011, the California Board of Accountancy voted to revise a portion of the Safe Harbor Language with regard to Financial Statement Preparation to read: “We (I) are (am) not licensed by the California Board of Accountancy for the preparation of these financial statements.”  There is now a proposal to require an additional sentence: “If compiled, reviewed or audited financial statements are desired, the services of someone licensed by the California Board of Accountancy would be required.”  

This additional sentence essentially would require individuals not licensed by the Board to advertise the services of someone else.  A letter writing campaign is being considered. To obtain more information or to discuss this proposal, please contact Jackie Hunt, EA, ATA, ATP, President, CSATP at jaqtaxlady@yahoo.com

2) California Bill 459 was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2012.  A brief summary follows:

Senate Bill 459 (“SB 459”) increases the penalties that can be assessed against employers who willfully misclassify as independent contractors individuals who should be treated as employees. The law also requires employers who are found to have engaged in such misclassification “to display prominently” for one year on their Internet websites a notice to employees and the general public announcing that the employer “has committed a serious violation of law by engaging in willful misclassification of employees.”

New Fines and Penalties
Violation of the statute carries exposure for a “civil penalty” of between $5,000 and $15,000 for each violation; if the employer is found to have engaged “in a pattern or practice of [those] violations,” the civil penalty is increased to $10,000 to $25,000 per violation. While the law doesn’t specify, presumably a single classification decision affecting a group of similarly situated individuals could state multiple violations, for each of which a separate monetary penalty could be assessed.

For the complete summary, click here.
A copy of this bill is available here.   

Income-splitting by California Domestic Partners

PRESP-111796-10 
Source: Office of Chief Counsel, IRS
Release date: 5.28.10 
Brief passage follows for your reference. For more information, click link above.

"In 2005, California law significantly expanded the rights and obligations of persons
entering into a California domestic partnership for state property law purposes, but not
for state income tax purposes. Specifically, the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (the California Act), effective on January 1, 2005, provided that “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” However, the California Act provided that 'earned income may not be treated as community property for state income tax purposes.' ”

"On September 29, 2006, California enacted Senate Bill 1827. Senate Bill 1827
repealed the language of the California Act providing that earned income was not to be treated as community property for state income tax purposes. Thus, effective January 1, 2007, the earned income of a registered domestic partner must be treated as community property for state income tax purposes (unless the RDPs execute an
agreement opting out of community property treatment). As a result of the legislation,
California, as of January 1, 2007, treats the earned income of registered domestic
partners as community property for both property law purposes and state income tax
purposes."