California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted 3 D cosponsors

SB 144 — Taxes: credits: qualified motion pictures: certified studio construction projects: reports.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 114, Statutes of 2021.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 08, 2021. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 8 sponsors

    1 primary, 7 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (3 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including a motion picture credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2025, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, with additional credit amounts allowed, including for amounts equal to specified qualified expenditures and qualified wages relating to original photography outside the Los Angeles zone, as specified. Under existing law, a qualified taxpayer, as defined, is required to provide certain information to the California Film Commission, including the specific start and end dates of production. Existing law does not require an applicant with a production that is an independent film, in filing an application for a motion picture credit with the commission, to provide a summary of the applicant's voluntary programs to increase the representation of minorities and women in specified job classifications. This bill would require a qualified taxpayer to provide additional information, including data regarding the diversity of the applicant's workforce, to be eligible for the motion picture credit. The bill would require an applicant with a production that is an independent film to include, in its application, a summary of the applicant's voluntary programs to increase the representation of minorities and women in specified job classifications. The bill would also require the commission to establish additional verification procedures for updating application information. The bill would require the commission to submit an annual report to the Legislature, beginning January 1, 2022, on aggregate diversity information for the productions allocated motion picture credits and the diversity of the motion picture production industry in California more generally. Existing law limits the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated under the film credits to $330,000,000, as specified, and sets forth allocation percentages for various productions under the motion picture credit. This bill would increase the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated for the 2021–22 and 2022–23 fiscal years by $15,000,000, and would make these credits exclusively available to television series that relocate to California, as defined. The bill would also increase the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated for the 2021–22 and 2022–23 fiscal years by $75,000,000, and would make these credits exclusively available to recurring television series. The bill would require the commission to limit the amount of credits any recurring television series receives in a subsequent season, as specified, and would require the commission to make adjustments, except as provided, to credit allocations if there are certain tax credit shortfalls. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, would allow a tax credit in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state at a certified studio construction project. The bill would provide that the credits be allocated by the California Film Commission in the same manner and time period as the existing motion picture credit. The bill would define a "certified studio construction project" for these purposes as a project that provides for the construction or renovation of one or more soundstages located in the state, as specified, and would require a taxpayer seeking certification of a studio construction project to make various certifications to the commission, including that the project is a public work or pays the equivalent of prevailing wages, as provided, and uses a skilled and trained workforce, as provided. The bill would allocate a total of $150,000,000 under this new tax credit, as provided. The bill would prohibit qualified motion pictures from receiving the credit if it receives a credit under the existing motion picture credits provisions, except as specified. By requiring a taxpayer to make specified certifications to the commission, which expands the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that if any deduction, credit, or exclusion provided in the Personal Income Tax Law or Corporation Tax Law is finally adjudged discriminatory against a national banking association, as described, is finally adjudged invalid, or is discriminatory under the California or United States Constitution, the tax of the favored taxpayer shall be recomputed by the Franchise Tax Board for the taxable year in question, as specified. This bill would state that this provision does not apply to a taxpayer for the invalidation of specified provisions of this bill. (3) Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2023, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to provide to certain legislative committees and the public a report evaluating the economic effects and administration of specified tax credits. This bill would change the due date for that report to May 1, 2023, and would require the report to include information relating to the motion picture tax credits. The bill would also require, on or before May 1, 2025, the LAO to provide to those legislative committees and the public certain workforce diversity information relating to those same tax credits. The bill would permit the LAO to request specified information from the California Film Commission and would additionally require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide information requested by the LAO. (4) 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. (5) This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. (6) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 114, Statutes of 2021.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 1981.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 66. Noes 4. Page 2352.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Assembly Rule 63 suspended.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Coauthors revised.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 14).

  11. Coauthors revised.

  12. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 18. Page 2301.)

  13. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

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

  15. (Corrected May 14).

  16. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

  17. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 8. Page 283.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. Ordered to second reading.

  21. Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 26. Noes 5. Page 201.)

  22. Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  23. Read first time.

  24. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 10.

  25. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 7 co-sponsors · 114 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Portantino

Co-sponsors (7)

Not signed on (114)

114 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 114 →

"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

Unfinished Business SB144 Portantino et al. Concurrence

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Unaffiliated 21002
Republican 3001
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Min — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Newman — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Bates — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Roth — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting
Melendez — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 144 Portantino Senate Third Reading By CARRILLO

Passed 66 Yea · 4 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 25001
Unaffiliated 37205
Republican 4203
Total 66409
% of votes cast 84%5%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Voepel — Not Voting
Waldron — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Wood — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Levine — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Smith — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 3001
Republican 0001
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Burke — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB144

Passed 29 Yea · 8 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 12001
Unaffiliated 17401
Republican 0400
Total 29802
% of votes cast 74%21%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Min — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Pan — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Newman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Bates — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Borgeas — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay

Official roll call →

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 144 do?
(1) The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including a motion picture credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2025, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, with additional credit amounts allowed, including for amounts equal to specified qualified expenditures and qualified wages relating to original photography outside the Los Angeles zone, as specified. Under existing law, a qualified taxpayer, as defined, is required to provide certain information to the California Film Commission, including the specific start and end dates of production. Existing law does not require an applicant with a production that is an independent film, in filing an application for a motion picture credit with the commission, to provide a summary of the applicant's voluntary programs to increase the representation of minorities and women in specified job classifications. This bill would require a qualified taxpayer to provide additional information, including data regarding the diversity of the applicant's workforce, to be eligible for the motion picture credit. The bill would require an applicant with a production that is an independent film to include, in its application, a summary of the applicant's voluntary programs to increase the representation of minorities and women in specified job classifications. The bill would also require the commission to establish additional verification procedures for updating application information. The bill would require the commission to submit an annual report to the Legislature, beginning January 1, 2022, on aggregate diversity information for the productions allocated motion picture credits and the diversity of the motion picture production industry in California more generally. Existing law limits the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated under the film credits to $330,000,000, as specified, and sets forth allocation percentages for various productions under the motion picture credit. This bill would increase the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated for the 2021–22 and 2022–23 fiscal years by $15,000,000, and would make these credits exclusively available to television series that relocate to California, as defined. The bill would also increase the aggregate amount of credits that may be allocated for the 2021–22 and 2022–23 fiscal years by $75,000,000, and would make these credits exclusively available to recurring television series. The bill would require the commission to limit the amount of credits any recurring television series receives in a subsequent season, as specified, and would require the commission to make adjustments, except as provided, to credit allocations if there are certain tax credit shortfalls. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, would allow a tax credit in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state at a certified studio construction project. The bill would provide that the credits be allocated by the California Film Commission in the same manner and time period as the existing motion picture credit. The bill would define a "certified studio construction project" for these purposes as a project that provides for the construction or renovation of one or more soundstages located in the state, as specified, and would require a taxpayer seeking certification of a studio construction project to make various certifications to the commission, including that the project is a public work or pays the equivalent of prevailing wages, as provided, and uses a skilled and trained workforce, as provided. The bill would allocate a total of $150,000,000 under this new tax credit, as provided. The bill would prohibit qualified motion pictures from receiving the credit if it receives a credit under the existing motion picture credits provisions, except as specified. By requiring a taxpayer to make specified certifications to the commission, which expands the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that if any deduction, credit, or exclusion provided in the Personal Income Tax Law or Corporation Tax Law is finally adjudged discriminatory against a national banking association, as described, is finally adjudged invalid, or is discriminatory under the California or United States Constitution, the tax of the favored taxpayer shall be recomputed by the Franchise Tax Board for the taxable year in question, as specified. This bill would state that this provision does not apply to a taxpayer for the invalidation of specified provisions of this bill. (3) Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2023, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to provide to certain legislative committees and the public a report evaluating the economic effects and administration of specified tax credits. This bill would change the due date for that report to May 1, 2023, and would require the report to include information relating to the motion picture tax credits. The bill would also require, on or before May 1, 2025, the LAO to provide to those legislative committees and the public certain workforce diversity information relating to those same tax credits. The bill would permit the LAO to request specified information from the California Film Commission and would additionally require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide information requested by the LAO. (4) 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. (5) This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. (6) This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Who sponsors SB 144?
SB 144 is sponsored by Portantino, Burke, Stern, Henry I. (Democratic), Nazarian, Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic), Rubio, Susan (Democratic), Luz Rivas, and Wendy Carrillo.
What is the current status of SB 144?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 08, 2021. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 144?
Track SB 144 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 144

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 144

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →