California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 342 — Taxation: administration: litigation: fees.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law provides that a prevailing party in a court action may be awarded attorney's fee under specified circumstances, and laws governing the administration of franchise and income tax laws provide that a prevailing party may be awarded a judgment for reasonable litigation costs incurred, in the case of any civil proceeding brought by or against the State of California in a court of record of this state, in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law as specified. This bill would make the provision of law governing the administration of franchise and income tax laws the exclusive means to award attorney's fees in any civil proceeding described above, and would prohibit attorney's fees from being awarded pursuant to any other statutory provision or common law doctrine regarding the award of attorney's fees. This bill also would prohibit a person from charging a contingent fee, as defined, for any matter involving a tax imposed under the Revenue and Taxation Code, and would impose a penalty, as provided, for failing to comply with this requirement. This bill would authorize specified state agencies to request a written certification from those persons, filed under penalty of perjury, that a fee charged for those services does not include a contingent fee. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  3. Hearing postponed by committee.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  5. Set for hearing May 3 in JUD. pending receipt.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 762.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  7. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  8. Set for hearing April 27.

  9. Hearing postponed by committee.

  10. Set for hearing May 4.

  11. Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. Set for hearing April 27.

  13. Hearing postponed by committee.

  14. Set for hearing March 23.

  15. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 18.

  17. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Wolk · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Wolk

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

taxation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 342 do?
Existing law provides that a prevailing party in a court action may be awarded attorney's fee under specified circumstances, and laws governing the administration of franchise and income tax laws provide that a prevailing party may be awarded a judgment for reasonable litigation costs incurred, in the case of any civil proceeding brought by or against the State of California in a court of record of this state, in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law as specified. This bill would make the provision of law governing the administration of franchise and income tax laws the exclusive means to award attorney's fees in any civil proceeding described above, and would prohibit attorney's fees from being awarded pursuant to any other statutory provision or common law doctrine regarding the award of attorney's fees. This bill also would prohibit a person from charging a contingent fee, as defined, for any matter involving a tax imposed under the Revenue and Taxation Code, and would impose a penalty, as provided, for failing to comply with this requirement. This bill would authorize specified state agencies to request a written certification from those persons, filed under penalty of perjury, that a fee charged for those services does not include a contingent fee. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 342?
SB 342 is sponsored by Wolk.
What is the current status of SB 342?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 342?
Track SB 342 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 342

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 342

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →