BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 450 N Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 BUSINESS TAXES COMMITTEE Reported by: Beverly D. Toms No. CSR 1662 1 1 2 P R E S E N T 3 4 For the Committee: Betty Yee Chair 5 Jerome E. Horton 6 Member 7 Barbaba Alby Acting Member 8 Michelle Steel 9 Member 10 Marcy Jo Mandel Appearing for John 11 Chiang, State Controller (per Government Code 12 Section 7.9) 13 Diane Olson Chief, Board 14 Proceedings Division 15 Board of Equalization 16 Staff: Jeff McGuire Sales and Use Tax Department 17 Robert Tucker 18 Legal Department 19 ---oOo--- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 INDEX 2 3 PAGE 4 SUB-ITEM: 5 1, PROPOSED CHANGES TO REGULATION 6 1506 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE 7 ENTERPRISES 4 8 Speaker: CATHY BARANKIN 6 9 10 2, SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO REGULATION 11 1807, PETITIONS FOR REALLOCATION 12 OF LOCAL TAX 9 13 Speakers: JOHAN KLEHS 11 14 BOB CENDEJAS 13 15 CHRISTY BOUMA 17 16 ---oOo--- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 SUB-ITEM 1, PROPOSED CHANGES TO REGULATION 1506 2 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE ENTERPRISES 3 Sacramento, California 4 September 15, 2010 5 ---oOO--- 6 MS. YEE: Good morning. Let's call the Board 7 of Equalization meeting to order. 8 Good morning, Ms. Olson. 9 MS. OLSON: Good morning. 10 MS. YEE: What is our first item, please? 11 MS. OLSON: Our first item for this morning's 12 agenda is Business Taxes Committee. And Ms. Yee is the 13 Chair of that Committee. 14 Ms. Yee. 15 MS. YEE: Okay. Thank you very much. Members, 16 we have two items on the committee agenda today. The 17 first item is proposed changes to Regulation 1506. You 18 will recall this was an interested parties process that 19 took place after we heard the appeal related to the sale 20 of meals at summer camps. 21 Let me have staff introduce the issue. Good 22 morning. 23 MR. McGUIRE: Good morning. I'm Jeff McGuire 24 with the Sales and Use Tax Department, and with me today 25 is Robert Tucker of our Legal Department. 26 As you mentioned, we do have two agenda items 27 for you this morning. The first involving Regulation 28 1506, which is Miscellaneous Service Enterprises. 4 1 And as you mentioned, this was recommended to 2 the Business Taxes Committee as a result of an appeals 3 case in February of 2010. 4 Alternative 1, which is recommended by staff 5 and agreed to by interested parties would clarify that 6 in order for a camp to qualify as a school or 7 educational institution the camp must be considered an 8 organized camp as defined in the California Health and 9 Safety Code. 10 Several other changes -- clarifying changes 11 were made to the regulation, including some examples of 12 camps that do qualify and do not qualify as educational 13 institutions. 14 Alternative 2 would make no changes to the 15 regulation and we are here this morning to request your 16 approval of one of these alternatives and then your 17 authorization to publish any approved changes to the 18 regulation. 19 I believe we do have one speaker this morning. 20 MS. YEE: Okay. The speaker, please come 21 forward. 22 I don't have -- oh, okay. 23 MR. McGUIRE: Right here is okay. 24 MS. YEE: Good morning. 25 MS. BARANKIN: Good morning. 26 MS. YEE: If you'll introduce yourself formally 27 for the record. You have three minutes for your 28 comments. 5 1 ---oOo--- 2 CATHY BARANKIN 3 MS. BARANKIN: Thank you so much. I'm Cathy 4 Barankin, and I'm here representing the California 5 Collaboration for Youth and the YMCA. 6 And we're just here to first of all thank you 7 for putting us in contact with your staff over this 8 matter and I -- we just want to thank you as a Board and 9 thank you to your staff who's just done a tremendous job 10 in working with the interested parties to come up with 11 this regulation. 12 The whole process was very open, very inviting. 13 It allowed for wonderful dialogue between the parties, 14 and, really, I think made the regulation very strong to 15 make sure that there is no abuse in terms of who is 16 required to pay taxes on their meal. 17 So we just want to thank you, the Board and the 18 staff, particularly Lynn Whitaker, who took the lead on 19 drafting these regulations because she just did a superb 20 job. 21 MS. YEE: Okay. 22 MS. BARANKIN: So thank you very much. 23 MS. YEE: Thank you very much. 24 Comments? Questions, Members? 25 Discussion? 26 MR. HORTON: Is Lynn here today? 27 MR. McGUIRE: Lynn is here. 28 MS. YEE: Lynn, thank you. 6 1 I have a couple of followup questions. I 2 remember the discussion pursuant to the appeal that we 3 had some other issues, and I just wanted to follow on. 4 Once the Board acts on the proposed changes before us I 5 believe we had suggested the possibility of some 6 outreach to the summer camps. Have we contemplated what 7 that might look like or -- 8 MR. McGUIRE: Well, I know initially we'll for 9 sure do something in some of our Tax Information 10 Bulletins about the new regulation and what the -- the 11 changes mean. But we can also do a focused mailer or 12 special notice to the camp organizations since we now 13 kind of have them fairly clearly identified who the 14 different organizations are, and work with them to 15 outreach in their publications and newsletters, as well. 16 MS. YEE: That's great. 17 MR. McGUIRE: And we will do that. 18 MS. YEE: I think the special notice would be 19 terrific. 20 And then, secondly, there were some issues with 21 respect to -- I guess part of the outreach will also be 22 education about who -- which of the camps need to be 23 permitized or hold seller's permits. We seem to have a 24 little bit of misunderstanding about that. 25 MR. McGUIRE: Yes, we -- that will be part of 26 the outreach. 27 MS. YEE: Okay. Very well. Thank you. 28 Other questions, Members? 7 1 Hearing none, is there a motion? 2 MS. ALBY: Move staff's recommendation. 3 MS. YEE: Okay. Motion by Ms. Alby to adopt 4 the staff recommendation, including authorization to 5 publish. Is there a second? 6 MS. MANDEL: Second. 7 MS. YEE: Second by Ms. Mandel. 8 Without objection, that motion carries. 9 Thank you very much. 10 ---oOo--- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1 SUB-ITEM 2, SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO REGULATION1807 2 PETITIONS FOR REALLOCATION OF LOCAL TAX 3 MS. YEE: Okay, next item is Suggested 4 revisions to Regulation 1807. It relates to petitions 5 for the reallocation of local tax. 6 We have several public speakers on this matter. 7 Let me have them come up perhaps three at a time. 8 And while you're coming up, let me have Mr. 9 McGuire introduce the issue. 10 MR. McGUIRE: Thank you. Yeah, the second 11 item, as you mentioned, is a result of a suggestion by 12 Mr. Johan Klehs on behalf of the City of Livermore to 13 revise some of the provisions of Regulation 1807, which 14 is Petitions for Reallocation of Local Tax. 15 We did receive some related comments and 16 suggestions from MuniServices, which were distributed to 17 your offices last week. 18 So we at staff are really just requesting your 19 direction this morning on how to process these 20 submissions, and of course we would be happy to open up 21 an interested parties process if you so choose. 22 And, again, we'll let the speakers kind of 23 address the specific issues. 24 MS. YEE: Okay. And before the speakers begin, 25 Members, I actually had invited some changes to this 26 process we've been hearing, local reallocation cases 27 over the course of the -- I think -- over the course of 28 our tenure on the Board. 9 1 And given -- particularly the fiscal 2 constraints that many local jurisdictions are 3 experiencing, the idea here is really to see whether 4 there are different points during the process that we 5 can truncate so that the decisions can be made a little 6 bit more timely, and that the reallocations, if those 7 are appropriate, can be made more timely, as well. 8 So let me have the speakers speak to the 9 proposed revisions. If you'll introduce yourself for 10 the record. You each have three minutes. 11 ---oOo--- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 1 JOHANKLEHS 2 MR. KLEHS: My name is Johan Klehs. I'm 3 representing the City of Livermore and sent a letter 4 with some suggested changes to Regulation 1807 to each 5 of the Board Members. 6 There are basically three components to the -- 7 an allocation case. One is when it goes to the 8 allocation group within the Board staff to determine who 9 may be receiving the money appropriately. 10 Second of all is the Appeals Division where 11 there are two components generally, the Appeals 12 Conference and a -- post-conference submissions. 13 And third is if the -- one of the parties is 14 unhappy with the outcome they can appeal that decision 15 of the Appeals Division to the Board, itself. 16 Our request is one where we simply are asking 17 to have some additional deadlines inserted into the 18 process to provide some certainty for all of the parties 19 and make sure that cases are moving forward and not 20 being backlogged. 21 Second of all, we're requesting that the Board 22 Members be provided with a -- a regular update of 23 backlogged cases in the 1807 process. That the Board 24 consider placing monies in trusts that may be in dispute 25 and we would leave it up to the Board in terms of how to 26 do that. But potentially write that into the regulation 27 if it's statutorily permissible. 28 And then also consider seeking legislative 11 1 support to pay interest to the party whose monies has 2 been held in trust. We realize that that is not often 3 done, but we want that to be part of the discussion. 4 Our reason for the changes that -- we believe 5 the staff is doing a great job, but the process, itself, 6 has some flaws and gaps in it that we think should be 7 tightened up. We want to add to the elimination of the 8 backlog. 9 A case that I've been working on is only a 10 three-year-old case. It's actually a very fast-moving 11 case, but we understand there's cases that are seven and 12 15 years old, and at a time when local governments are 13 having a very difficult time meeting some of their 14 budget needs, you can imagine why a local government 15 would not want to be waiting seven to 15 years to get 16 money that is appropriately owed to it. 17 And then finally we want to simply make sure 18 that the Board reaches the right decision, get the tax 19 monies to the entity that is legally entitled to it. 20 We realize this is the beginning of -- in a 21 process of interested parties. We know it will take 22 quite some time but we want to use our suggestions that 23 we've submitted as a starting point to change the 24 regulation. 25 Thank you very much. 26 MS. YEE: Thank you, Mr. Klehs. 27 Next speaker. 28 ---oOo--- 12 1 BOB CENDEJAS 2 MR. CENDEJAS: Good morn -- good morning. My 3 name is Bob Cendejas. I represent many cities and I 4 surveyed most of them. And their biggest concern is the 5 suggestion that the money be held in trust. 6 As -- as you know, I've been dealing in this 7 area for maybe 15 years in different appeals and it's 8 very common for misunderstanding of facts and to get an 9 unfavorable decision and get that cleared up later. 10 And as Mr. -- as Johan KLehs has said, 11 sometimes these cases will go seven years, three years, 12 nine years. To hold the money in trust when the city's 13 confident it's their money and -- and create a huge hole 14 in their budget until it's finally cleared up and 15 resolved is not a win-win for anybody. 16 When the cities feel that there's any chance 17 that they're going to lose, they're just like any 18 corporation. When they look at tax issues and say, 19 well, we might lose this 50-50 or we're going to lose 20 this, or we're going to win this, they reserve for it. 21 Cities do the same thing. They -- they reserve if they 22 think they're going to lose, if they've made a mistake 23 or -- and -- but on the other hand when they know the 24 facts and they know that it's within the law, then 25 there's no sense for them to create a giant hole in 26 their budgets that could go on for years before they get 27 the money released back to them. 28 That was by far their -- their biggest concern 13 1 every single city I talked to. 2 The -- a couple of minor points. One talked 3 about within the reg. saying whether there's some kind 4 of incentive. I don't -- I don't think it's necessary. 5 I don't think it's -- it's an appropriate place. 6 When -- if you say there's some incentive, 7 well, what does that mean? Did they pay for the street 8 repairs out front? Did they do a loan that gets paid 9 back low interest? 10 They provide a rebate. Whether they do -- so 11 there really -- if that's important information then the 12 actual full information should be gotten, and that's 13 what is routinely done when somebody wants something. 14 They just make a request for public information. They 15 not only get that information, they get a copy of the 16 agreement and they see all the details. 17 So I think that's the proper way to do it and 18 it's been done. I think it probably creates more 19 disinformation than helpfulness by having it in the 20 regulation. 21 There's a couple other points but probably the 22 most important one remaining would be we're in favor of 23 speeding along. In fact, I think in the past when we 24 did 1807 it was more a concern on the Department to put 25 deadlines on themselves that might make it difficult 26 because they're not always in charge of their resources. 27 So if they felt comfortable with deadlines 28 we're -- we're all in favor of that. But there's one 14 1 thing that I thought might be overall helpful, maybe 2 something in the reg. that says that nothing in this 3 reg. is to be construed that the Board Members on their 4 own initiative by making a motion or a motion that's 5 second, take the case that's maybe sat there for years 6 and -- and move it to the -- to a Board hearing. 7 So, if you see that that's the thing to do, you 8 go ahead and do that. I mean, in fact I'm sitting next 9 to Johan Klehs, who actually did that very thing 10 about -- was it, about six -- seven years ago, with 11 the -- with -- well, I can't say the case name. But the 12 one with Fremont, Long Beach and Signal Hill. And it 13 had stymied for about four years in that first level of 14 five levels, and he took it -- took it to the Board and 15 did something that was very helpful for everybody 16 because then they all saw that if you have a 17 distribution center it could get allocated at a 18 distribution center if that was all you had. 19 And so that really gave everybody important 20 information early on than waiting another four or five 21 years. 22 So maybe something in the reg. that reminds 23 everybody that the Board has that power to take a case 24 earlier if they so see fit. 25 Thank you. 26 MR. KLEHS: (inaudible), obviously. 27 MS. YEE: Thank you, Mr. Cendejas. 28 MR. CENDEJAS: Yeah, I know, I didn't want to 15 1 say it out loud. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. YEE: Thank you. Next speaker, please. 4 ---oOo--- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 1 CHRISTY BOUMA. 2 MS. BOUMA: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, 3 Members of the Business Tax Committee. Christy Bouma. 4 I'm representing MuniServices this morning. 5 MuniServices on behalf of our client 6 jurisdictions are very active participants, as you well 7 know, in -- have a long history in local tax allocation 8 matters before the Board. And a similar history in 9 being participants in any conversations of -- of 10 revising the rules that govern such procedures. 11 Likewise in 2007 when the Board undertook 12 through its interested parties process a revamp of the 13 regulation, creating some significant benchmarks and 14 points through the process that were more specific we 15 had the opportunity to present recommendations as 16 practitioners in that process. 17 While not all of our recommendations were 18 ultimately adopted, which is why we made a submission to 19 the Board earlier last week, just to indicate a level of 20 our participation during that process, we viewed the 21 process as extremely collaborative, a process that 22 resulted in many great improvements to a process that 23 was certain to produce better results for all parties 24 involved. 25 Given that, any process could benefit from a 26 review and possible improvements and we would only just 27 caution that we do so with -- with great prudence given 28 the fact that, as both speakers mentioned, there was a 17 1 tremendous backlog of cases due to the previous rules 2 that were being followed prior to the adoption of 3 Regulation 1807 that are being cleared by the hard work 4 of this Board and the staff. 5 So, while you're frustrated by hearing cases 6 that may have those double digit numbers of how old they 7 are, they're getting cleared out. 8 And so to fairly evaluate the efficacy of the 9 new regulation, we should just take care as we go 10 through a process to make sure that we're not judging it 11 be old news rather than new news that you are more 12 recently hearing. 13 So we would be more than willing to actively 14 engage in a process that would take a look at the 15 current procedures and see if there are places where 16 they can make improvements or if we should let it stand 17 until we give it a little more time to see how it works 18 the cases through the process. 19 Thanks for your time. 20 MS. YEE: Thank you very much, Ms. Bouma. 21 Questions, Members? Discussion? 22 MS. MANDEL: Were there more speakers or this 23 was it? 24 MS. YEE: No, I had the sign-up sheet confused. 25 MS. MANDEL: Oh. 26 MS. YEE: I apologize. 27 Ms. Alby. 28 MS. ALBY: I'm good. 18 1 MS. YEE: Okay. Other discussion? 2 MR. HORTON: Yeah. 3 MS. YEE: Mr. Horton, please. 4 MR. HORTON: Question of the Department. 5 First, thank you, Mr. Klehs and all of those 6 who have presented today for your input. I think it's 7 very helpful. 8 I -- I must share, though, I'm a tad bit 9 concerned about regulating the efficiency. You know, 10 it's a function that you should be able to do 11 systemically and institutionally. To the -- so, to the 12 extent that we can address that from a systemic change, 13 institutional change, whether or not we need to -- I 14 mean, the point of identifying our inventory and 15 identifying our backlog and trying to come up with ways 16 to accelerate that, a lot of wisdom in that, and the -- 17 the logic and particularly in this time era. 18 Question of the Department, placing the money 19 in trust, can we legally do that? I mean, here's my 20 concern. Is establishing and placing money in trust 21 without an established liability -- I don't know, what's 22 your legal thoughts on that? 23 MR. McGUIRE: In our discussions with our -- 24 our legal staff they do believe that we would probably 25 need statutory authority because these are allocations 26 of -- of taxes that have been determined to be due by 27 taxpayers. But I know Randy Ferris has just sat down 28 next to me, so my answer -- thank you, Randy. Yeah. 19 1 MR. HORTON: Mr. Ferris. 2 MR. FERRIS: We do have the discretion in -- in 3 certain complex cases if -- if there's enough evidence 4 that we think that there's going to be a reallocation 5 once it becomes final to hold monies in suspense. And 6 so we do occasion -- 7 MR. HORTON: Yeah, that's the part -- that's 8 part of our -- 9 MR. FERRIS: We do occasionally do that, but we 10 would need a statutory change, we believe, for -- to 11 have interest accrue on that. 12 MR. HORTON: So as part of our fiduciary 13 responsibility if we believe that it's in our best 14 interest to protect the interest of the State we -- we 15 have that authority, but that's after it's been 16 disclosed that there is a problem, and we need to 17 protect everyone of -- 18 MR. FERRIS: That's correct. 19 MR. HORTON: So -- but doing it on the front 20 end presents a challenge. Okay. 21 Interest on the funds, I would just share. I 22 think there's a lot of equity in providing -- the State 23 providing interest on funds that we take from taxpayers 24 and hold in trust. But the same benefit that exists in 25 providing interest also exists in providing them the 26 opportunity to invest their money as they see fit and 27 the things that they need to do and to create other 28 means to take care of potential liabilities, such as 20 1 insurance, accrued li -- accrued liabilities, reserves 2 and changes of that nature. But they can -- they can 3 access and kind of control their own cash flow. 4 If the State holds the money they don't have 5 that flexibility and there's a concern with that. 6 Those are my thoughts. 7 MS. YEE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Horton. 8 Others? 9 Ms. Mandel. 10 MS. MANDEL: Well, I -- I think we shared a lot 11 of the same concerns with -- whether specific 12 recommendations are appropriate for regulation or not, 13 but we're not looking to adopt -- 14 MS. YEE: No. 15 MR. HORTON: No. 16 MS. MANDEL: -- these? No, I -- 17 MS. YEE: No. 18 MS. MANDEL: Okay. No. 19 MS. YEE: No. Members, my suggestion here is 20 to take the various suggestions that have been brought 21 forth to the Board -- to the committee and actually put 22 them into an interested parties process. 23 And I want to speak to Mr. Horton's comment for 24 a minute. 25 The regulation currently has some fairly 26 prescriptive timelines. And -- actually, and contained 27 in some provisions and other provisions are a little bit 28 more open-ended. And I think having had the regulation 21 1 in place now for a bit it's -- I would suggest that we 2 go back and just read this where we might be able to 3 tighten it up. 4 This is not in any way suggesting that the 5 staff is not doing its job. But I think it is a way to 6 think about how to not have these cases really just 7 languish for such a long period of time when really the 8 longer we wait we're not getting any more information 9 that's helping the Board decide the outcome of -- of the 10 reallocation question. 11 So it is something that I do want to put into 12 an interested parties process. 13 The issue about holding the monies in trust, I 14 do want the Legal Department's guidance on this with 15 respect to what authority we have to do that. I agree 16 with Mr. Ferris with respect to the application of 17 interest, that that would require a statutory change. 18 But I think these are all issues that -- I mean, the -- 19 I just have to say the discomfort that I have with any 20 reallocation that -- case that comes before this Board 21 is, one, how long it's been with us and, two, the fact 22 that we have and we are going to continue to have fiscal 23 constraints among local agencies for years to come and 24 I -- I just want to be sure that this Board is doing its 25 due diligence in terms of trying to expedite the 26 disposition of these cases as much as possible. 27 MS. MANDEL: And in -- in that regard I think 28 it would be important in the process for -- the 22 1 regulation is really itself quite new and I don't know 2 how many petitions have been filed since the regulation 3 came in and -- and where they're in the process as 4 opposed to how many of them were filed under the old 5 procedures then elected to be under the new procedures 6 and then move forward. 7 There is, you know, some disconnect because the 8 reg. is just a couple years old and a lot of the cases 9 that are coming forward are older than that. And the 10 old process was just -- 11 MR. HORTON: Absolutely. 12 MS. MANDEL: Yeah, it was quite a process, 13 which is why -- 14 MS. YEE: (inaudible) 15 MS. MANDEL: -- you know, it went into the reg. 16 And so I think the point that MuniServices' 17 representative made about that there -- you know, that 18 you kind of have to judge what's happening -- what's 19 really happening under the reg. and what kinds of things 20 maybe could be tweaked or should be tweaked under the 21 reg. as opposed to a slew of cases that -- that carry 22 the baggage of the old system. Because that's different 23 things. 24 And I think you also don't necessarily want to 25 do things in the reg just because there's a perceived 26 problem in a particular case as opposed to what's going 27 on -- 28 MS. YEE: Exactly. 23 1 MS. MANDEL: -- with the universe of cases. 2 MS. YEE: Yes, that's -- no, I would agree. 3 And -- and that is a point well taken. We've had a 4 pretty rough history here with this regulation and the 5 application thereof. 6 But -- and my sense about these revisions is 7 that they would have a prospective application so that 8 it wouldn't certainly compromise any process that's 9 currently ongoing with respect to pending cases. 10 Okay. Other discussion, Members? 11 MR. HORTON: Madam Chair, if I may. 12 MS. YEE: Yes, Mr. Horton. 13 MR. HORTON: Just as a suggestion, just to 14 assist us in sort of framing the discussion and the 15 debate in the interested parties process, maybe we can 16 have staff drill down on where we are currently, what 17 the current backlog is, and what their recommended 18 modifications might be in order to accelerate the 19 process and address the problem. And in that process 20 they may want to collaborate with the representatives 21 from the -- of the various stakeholders. 22 And then out of that process we would come 23 forth with at least some -- a frame of discussions 24 during the interested parties process. 25 I mean, I would certainly feel better having a 26 better understanding of what the facts are. Even -- I 27 certainly agree with my colleagues. Even though I 28 wasn't here I was observing from afar the convoluting 24 1 aspect of this particular regulation. 2 In fact, we were entertaining statute to sort 3 of deal with it but decided not to go that route and 4 decided to allow the Board to make its own adjustments 5 and that it should be within the purview of the 6 regulating body, not the legislative body. So -- 7 I think that information might be -- give us some 8 guidance as we go forward. 9 MS. YEE: Thank you, Mr. Horton. I think 10 that's a suggestion that is appropriate. 11 Let me suggest this. What I -- I would like to 12 make a motion to send this matter to the interested 13 parties process. Perhaps what can take place prior to 14 the first interested parties meeting is the staff to in 15 its initial issue paper provide us with an update with 16 respect to the current case backlog. 17 And then also -- obviously there have been 18 suggested revisions that have been submitted. Those 19 will be incorporated in terms of what will be discussed 20 in the interested parties process, but also that whole 21 process is for staff also to -- to provide suggestions, 22 as well. 23 But that may be the venue to at least give us a 24 context about what our current case load situation looks 25 like. 26 MR. HORTON: I second that motion, Madam Chair. 27 MS. YEE: Okay. Thank you. 28 Motion by Yee, second by Horton. 25 1 Any further discussion? 2 Without objection, that motion carries. 3 Thank you, Members. 4 MR. KLEHS: Thank you. 5 MS. YEE: That -- Business Taxes Committee is 6 adjourned. 7 ---oOo--- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, BEVERLY D. TOMS, Hearing Reporter for the 8 California State Board of Equalization certify that on 9 September 15, 2010 I recorded verbatim, in shorthand, to 10 the best of my ability, the proceedings in the 11 above-entitled hearing; that I transcribed the shorthand 12 writing into typewriting; and that the preceding 26 13 pages constitute a complete and accurate transcription 14 of the shorthand writing. 15 16 Dated: October 6, 2010. 17 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 BEVERLY D. TOMS 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 27