The Bloomberg BNA SALT Blog is a forum for practitioners and Bloomberg BNA editors to share ideas, raise issues, and network with colleagues about state and local tax topics. The ideas presented here are those of individuals and Bloomberg BNA bears no responsibility for the appropriateness or accuracy of the communications between group members.
Monday, June 23, 2014
by Melissa Fernley
California senators are reconsidering a bill (S.B.
1372) which would set corporate income tax rates according to the ratio
between CEO salaries and median worker pay. Right now, California corporations
are subject to a flat 8.84% rate, with banks paying 2% more, but the bill’s new
corporate income tax system would be a sliding scale, as follows:
CEO to Median Worker Compensation Ratio
Corporate Income Tax Rate
Over zero but not over 25
Over 25 but not over 50
Over 50 but not over 100
Over 100 but not over 150
Over 150 but not over 200
Over 200 but not over 250
Over 250 but not over 300
Over 300 but not over 400
The bill doesn’t just penalize companies that disproportionately
compensate their CEOs. It also contains provisions that would increase tax
rates for companies that lay off or outsource large numbers of workers. Under
the bill, corporations that reduce employment in the U.S. by more than 10% or
increase employment overseas could be required to pay up to 50% more.
The bill’s suggested corporate income tax system is the
first of its kind in the United States. Besides addressing growing concern over
extravagant CEO salaries and bonuses, the sliding scale eerily reflects the requirements of
the Dodd-Frank Act, which also requires companies to determine the median
compensation for employees and then report the ratio of employee pay to CEO
Some of the bill’s unintended
consequences include the possible exodus of publicly traded companies and
financial institutions from California, and the disproportionate effect on
retail companies with a large number of entry-level sales personnel.
While S.B. 1372 was initially defeated in the senate, there
is still time for revival before the end of the legislative session. As a tax
levy requiring a two-thirds vote, the bill is not subject to normal legislative
By Melissa Fernley
Continue the discussion on Bloomberg BNA’s State Tax Group
For more information about this and other state tax issues,
sign up for a free trial of the Bloomberg BNA Premier
State Tax Library.
Follow Melissa on Twitter: @mafernley
Follow BBNA on Twitter: @BBNAtax
to post a comment.
Corporate Close-Up: Is Rhode Island Tax Overhaul a Mixed Blessing for Corporations?
Incentives Watch: The Impact of Military Reduction and the Need for Veteran Credits
Weekly Round-Up: One Practitioner’s Fight Against Kentucky’s Revenue Department for Case Records
Extras on Excise: Washington Keeps Coffers Closed, Denies B&O Tax Refund to Health Care Providers
Property Tax Post: Processor Giant Intel Corp. Enters $100 Billion Incentive Agreement to Invest in Oregon