Our team’s response to Senate and Assembly response

August 31, 2010

Clearly, these analyses were made up after the bill was amended from what we had given the senior legislature.
My questions:
a. Was it changed first by the senior legislature? If so, was Ann Mack aware of this?
b. Both analyses refer to an “author”; senate says “author’s office”, assembly says “author’s statement.” Who is this “author?” Both analyses refer to “as amended May 5, 2010.
c. Was it changed after the senior legislature acted on it, and by whom? When did the senior legislature act – before May 5?
d. If changed after the senior legislature, why didn’t the analysis indicate that it was not what the senior legislature had acted on? Why wasn’t Ann Mack made aware that a significantly different bill was what the legislature was considering?
* The senate analysis:
a. paragraph #1 completely fails to make the point about the inequity between the first death step up vs senior couples.
b. paragraph #2 should say senior “couple”, not senior “citizen.”
c. The argument in support notes the insufficient exclusion being a disincentive to plan for care needs, but misses the idea that it is a disincentive to make other lifestyle changes, such as a smaller home in a location nearer to grandchildren, etc. Read the rest of this entry »


SJR-20 Senate Revenue and Tax Analysis

August 31, 2010
CONTINUED
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SJR 20
CONSENT
Bill No: SJR 20
Author: Alquist (D)
Amended: 5/5/10
Vote: 21
SENATE REVENUE & TAXATION COMMITTEE: 4-0, 5/12/10
AYES: Wolk, Alquist, Ashburn, Padilla
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SUBJECT: Taxation: sale of principal residence: senior citizens
SOURCE: California Senior Legislature
DIGEST: This resolution urges the Congress and the President of the
United States to enact legislation that increases the amount of gain that a
senior citizen 65 years of age and older and who pays for long-term care
costs I allowed to exclude from income, from $250,000 to $500,000, and
from $500,000 to $750,000 for joint returns, from the sale of the qualifying
principal residence of the senior citizen. Read the rest of this entry »

SJR-20 Assembly Revenue and Tax Analysis

August 31, 2010
SJR 20
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION
Anthony Portantino, Chair
SJR 20 (Alquist) – As Amended: May 5, 2010
Majority vote.
SENATE VOTE: 32-0
SUBJECT: Taxation: sale of principal residence.
SUMMARY: Urges the Congress and the President of the United States (U.S.) to enact
legislation that would increase the amount of capital gain excludable from income if it is realized
by a senior citizen 65 years of age or older on the sale of his/her principal residence.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes a request from the Legislature to Congress and the President of the U.S. to enact
legislation that would do all of the following:
a) Increase the amount of non-taxable gain realized on the sale of the qualifying principal
residence by a senior citizen 65 years of age or older from $250,000 to $500,000 for
single filers and from $500,000 to $750,000 for joint filers.
b) Limit the seniors’ eligibility for the increased amount of non-taxable gain only to seniors
who pay for long-term care costs, including long term care insurance premiums, entrance
fees to assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and senior
congregate living facilities.
2) Makes findings to support the request and resolves that the Secretary of the Senate transmit
copies of the resolution to specified elected officials. Read the rest of this entry »

Open Letter to Anna Eshoo

August 26, 2010

Dear Ann Ream:

Subject: SJR-20 Resolution 57 Hijacked (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_20&sess=PREV&house=B&author=alquist).

I think this is a case of well-intentioned legislation introduced by a separate senior group to the senior senate and on to the state legislature that was hijacked by the insurance and retirement homes lobby.

Please review our initial legislation and you have Resolution 57. There were zero “no” votes by any representative during the entire process. It doesn’t pass the smell test by any measure.

Please review our response to Senator Alquist and our piece that appeared in the Mercury News: https://jameshall.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/.

We have tried to develop interest from the major players including Anna Eshoo for many years. We would like to know who the Federal representative who is sponsoring the bill.

James Hall


Open Letter to Senator Elaine Alquist

August 26, 2010

Senator Elaine Alquist

SJR-20
Resolution Change 57 – 100% Yes Zero – No (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sjr_20&sess=CUR&house=B&author=alquist)

What Happened?

We will identify ourselves as the original group that worked with Senior Senator Ann Mack to develop the legislation that became SJR 20. We had a four-fold purpose:
1. Increase property tax revenue substantially over time without a direct confrontation with Prop 13. We expect this would occur because senior couples over age 65 would have a capital gains tax barrier to selling their homes removed. We believe their moving might cause a new buyer, paying current market value property taxes, to then occupy the home. The larger purpose, however, was the one listed below.
2. Overcoming a huge inequity for elderly taxpayers only, which is the Federal unfairness in application of the ‘Step-Up-Basis-at-First-Death’ (no matter what age.) By allowing all seniors over 65 to sell their primary residence and pay no capital gains, they would receive the same capital gains tax treatment given to surviving spouses. Since surviving spouses pay no capital gains in immediately selling their primary residence, whereas couples face a large capital gains over the $250,000 per person exemption, couples are second-class taxpayers to surviving spouses. We were primarily attempting to resolve that inequity!
3. Stimulate home real estate sales among seniors in middle to upper class neighborhoods
4. Free up billions of capital that is currently locked-up   Read the rest of this entry »