California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 3 D · 1 R cosponsors

AB 310 — Wealth tax.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk 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 Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 imposes taxes upon income and real property, as well as taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, impose an annual tax at a rate of 1% of a resident of this state's worldwide net worth in excess of $50,000,000, or in excess of $25,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would also impose an additional tax at a rate of 0.5% of a resident's worldwide net worth in excess of $1,000,000,000, or in excess of $500,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would describe worldwide net worth with reference to specific federal provisions and would provide that worldwide net worth does not include specific assets, including personal property situated out of state, directly held real property, or liabilities related to directly held real property. The bill would also authorize the Franchise Tax Board to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions, including regulations regarding the valuation of certain assets that are not publicly traded. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to administer the Personal Income Tax Law. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to amend or create returns with regard to the Wealth Tax. Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. That act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the provisions of the False Claims Act to claims, records, or statements made in relation to the wealth tax imposed by the bill, as specified. This bill would specify that the tax imposed by the bill shall only become operative if a specified constitutional amendment is approved by the voters and takes effect. 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 XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.

  5. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.

  7. Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  8. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.

  9. Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.

  10. From printer. May be heard in committee February 25.

  11. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on · 14 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (5)

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"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

Passed 62 Yea · 17 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 47000
Unaffiliated 15500
Republican 01201
Total 621701
% of votes cast 78%21%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Wood — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
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
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9001
Unaffiliated 2100
Republican 0300
Total 11401
% of votes cast 69%25%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Not Voting
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 1000
Democratic 4001
Republican 0200
Total 5201
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Not Voting
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 AB 310 do?
Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, as well as taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, impose an annual tax at a rate of 1% of a resident of this state's worldwide net worth in excess of $50,000,000, or in excess of $25,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would also impose an additional tax at a rate of 0.5% of a resident's worldwide net worth in excess of $1,000,000,000, or in excess of $500,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would describe worldwide net worth with reference to specific federal provisions and would provide that worldwide net worth does not include specific assets, including personal property situated out of state, directly held real property, or liabilities related to directly held real property. The bill would also authorize the Franchise Tax Board to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions, including regulations regarding the valuation of certain assets that are not publicly traded. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to administer the Personal Income Tax Law. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to amend or create returns with regard to the Wealth Tax. Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. That act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the provisions of the False Claims Act to claims, records, or statements made in relation to the wealth tax imposed by the bill, as specified. This bill would specify that the tax imposed by the bill shall only become operative if a specified constitutional amendment is approved by the voters and takes effect. 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 XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 AB 310?
AB 310 is sponsored by Lee, Alex (Democratic), Santiago, Kalra, Ash (Democratic), Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican), Rivas, Robert (Democratic), and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 310?
This bill died with 2021-2022 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 AB 310?
Track AB 310 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 310

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.

Stay ahead of AB 310

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →