Skip to content

What’s the difference between a trailer bill and a policy bill? A surplus and an operating surplus? Special funds and the General Fund? And what exactly is a “Budget Bill Jr.”? Understanding these and other key budget-related terms is critical to navigating the California state budget process and effectively engaging decision-makers in order to advocate for fair and just policy choices for communities across the state.

Key Terms

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

Rotunda California Capital building in Sacramento

See our report Dollars and Democracy: A Guide to the California State Budget Process to learn more about the state budget and budget process.

The federal government plays a major role in shaping California’s budget, economy, and the well-being of its people.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Join the Dollars & Democracy budget training to strengthen your understanding of the state budget process and prepare for 2026.

Register here!

About this event

Tune in to Dollars & Democracy, the Budget Center’s premier state budget training, followed by a panel discussion that will help you understand and effectively engage in the California state budget process.

This training is designed for advocates who are new to the field or want to refresh their understanding of the state budget process. We’ll break down California’s budget process, highlighting key deadlines and the essential role the governor, Legislature, and advocates play in advancing community investments.

After the training, stay for a panel discussion with state budget experts who will share practical advocacy strategies and insights into what’s ahead for 2026.

Budget Trainer

Dollars and Democracy training

  • Nishi Nair, Research Associate, California Budget & Policy Center

Discussion Panel

Looking ahead and what to expect in 2026

  • Sasha Feldstein, Strategy & Impact Director, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Tiyesha Watts, Associate Director of Policy Advocacy, California Housing Partnership
  • Edgar Ortiz, Supervisory Policy Manager, Economic Justice, California Immigrant Policy Center

About the California Budget & Policy Center

The California Budget & Policy Center (Budget Center) is a nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit advancing public policies that expand opportunities and promote well-being for all Californians.

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Watch to learn more

Some decisions in California’s Legislature require more than a simple majority — they need a supermajority, or two-thirds vote. But what does that really mean, and why does it matter for Californians?

In this short explainer, we break down how Proposition 26 changed the rules around taxes and fees, what kinds of actions require a supermajority vote, and how this impacts the ability of lawmakers to make policy decisions that affect everyday people.

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Read this publication in English.

El proceso legislativo: Principios básicos

El proceso legislativo, también conocido como el proceso de proyectos de ley, proporciona una vía clave para que los californianos que desean cambiar la ley estatal puedan hacerlo a través de la legislatura del estado.

Cada año, los miembros de la asamblea legislativa y el senado presentan conjuntamente miles de proyectos de ley que avanzan a través del proceso legislativo parcial o totalmente. Estos proyectos proponen cambios a uno o más de los casi 30 códigos estatales de California y estos cambios entran en vigencia solo si el proyecto de ley es aprobado por ambas cámaras y firmado por el gobernador.

Las propuestas de modificar la Constitución del estado también pasan por el proceso legislativo. Aunque las modificaciones constitucionales de la asamblea legislativa y el senado no requieren la firma del gobernador, sí necesitan la aprobación de los votantes para poder entrar en vigencia.

El proceso legislativo funciona de acuerdo a normas delineadas en la Constitución del estado, las leyes estatales y los acuerdos de ambas cámaras (“normas conjuntas”) adoptados por la asamblea legislativa y el senado al inicio de cada sesión legislativa de dos años.

Las normas escritas y no escritas exclusivas de cada cámara, así como de diversos comités dentro de cada cámara y que cambian de un año a otro, también moldean el proceso legislativo y las participaciones de participación del público.

Es importante resaltar que el proceso del presupuesto estatal ofrece una vía separada para cambiar la ley estatal a través de la legislatura (usando proyectos de ley “tráiler”). Comparado con el proceso legislativo, el proceso de presupuesto estatal tiene normas, plazos y, en algunos casos, encargados de tomar decisiones distintos. Quienes abogan por el cambio legislativo usan tanto el proceso de presupuesto estatal como el legislativo para impulsar sus metas políticas. Sin embargo, el resto de esta guía se concentra exclusivamente en el proceso legislativo.

Oportunidades para la participación del público en el proceso legislativo

El público tiene muchas oportunidades de interactuar con los legisladores estatales durante el proceso legislativo. Por ejemplo, las personas pueden:

  • Sugerir ideas de proyectos de ley a los miembros de la legislatura.
  • Desarrollar / renovar relaciones con los legisladores y su personal para desarrollar familiaridad y confianza, elementos cruciales para obtener autores de proyectos de ley e impulsar la legislación.
  • Conocer a los legisladores y a su personal, así como miembros del gobierno del gobernador para defender legislación y abordar cualquier inquietud.
  • Escribir cartas a los comités y a legisladores individuales para compartir opiniones sobre los proyectos de ley que se han presentado.
  • Asistir a audiencias de comités legislativos para compartir opiniones sobre los proyectos de ley durante los períodos de comentario público.
  • Instar al gobernador a que firme o vete una ley.

Comités de política

Los miembros de comités de políticas de la asamblea de legisladores y el senado consideran las consecuencias políticas de un proyecto de ley. El liderazgo de cada cámara asigna los proyectos de ley a comités de política según el tema de los proyectos y otros factores. Los proyectos de ley pueden ser revisados por un solo comité de política en cada cámara o por varios comités de política.

El senado estatal tiene más de 20 comités de política actuales, y la asamblea tiene más de 30. El Comité de Educación de la asamblea legislativa (Assembly Education Committee) y el Comité de Ingresos e Impuestos del senado son algunos ejemplos. Los proyectos de ley que se aprueban en esta etapa, potencialmente con modificaciones, se transfieren al comité de apropiaciones para revisarse en más profundidad.

Los comités de asignaciones y el “archivo de asuntos pendientes”

Los comités de asignaciones calculan el costo de los proyectos de ley. Si el costo alcanza o supera ciertos umbrales, en general el proyecto se coloca en el archivo de asuntos pendientes del comité, que esencialmente es una “sala de espera” para los proyectos que se examinan en mayor profundidad. Los umbrales de costo son relativamente bajos en ambas cámaras. En el senado, el umbral varía entre $50,000 y $150,000, depende del fondo estatal del que se tomará el dinero. El umbral en la asamblea legislativa es $150,000, sin importar cuál sea el fondo.

Dos veces por año, los comités de apropiaciones organizan audiencias donde anuncian rápidamente el destino de cientos de proyectos de ley que se encuentran en su archivo de asuntos pendientes. Los proyectos que se sacan del archivo de asuntos pendientes mediante un voto, frecuentemente con enmiendas, pasan a la asamblea legislativa o el senado. Los proyectos de ley que continúan “en suspenso” en el comité de apropiaciones quedan inactivas por el resto del año.

Los proyectos de ley pueden quedar en suspenso por una variedad de razones, inclusive preocupaciones por su costo. Sin embargo, típicamente los directores de los comités no explican públicamente por qué algunos proyectos pasan a la asamblea legislativa o el senado y otros se mantienen en suspenso.

Votos formales de toda la legislatura: Mayoría simple o súper mayoría

Una vez que un proyecto de ley es aprobado por el comité final en su “cámara de origen”, se programa para debatirse y votar en el pleno de la cámara. La mayoría de los proyectos de ley solo necesitan una mayoría simple para ser aprobados: 41 votos en la asamblea legislativa de 80 miembros y 21 votos en el senado de 40 miembros.

Sin embargo, se requieren dos tercios (una súper mayoría) de los votos en cada cámara si el proyecto de ley:

  • Genera un impuesto nuevo o aumenta un impuesto existente.
  • Contiene una cláusula de “urgencia” que le permite entrar en vigencia de inmediato en lugar de esperar hasta el 1 de enero (la fecha típica).
  • Propone enmendar la Constitución del estado, un cambio que en última instancia debe ser aprobado por una mayoría de los votantes en una elección estatal.

Enjuagar y repetir: El proceso se traslada al senado estatal

Si un proyecto de ley es aprobado en la primera cámara, pasa a la cámara alta, donde se repite el proceso: comités de política, comité de apropiaciones, voto de la cámara en pleno. Típicamente los proyectos de ley son modificados una vez más en esta etapa. Si se aprueban con enmiendas, el proyecto vuelve a la cámara baja para una votación de “conformidad”. Los proyectos de ley aprobados con un voto de conformidad pasan al gobernador para su consideración final.

Aprobación o veto: Los proyectos de ley aprobados se envían al gobernador.

Una vez que un proyecto de ley recibe la aprobación legislativa final, se le envía al gobernador, quien puede:

  • Firmar el proyecto de ley para que se convierta en ley.
  • Permitir que el proyecto de ley se convierta en ley sin una firma.
  • Vetar, rechazar, el proyecto de ley. La legislatura puede anular un veto con dos tercios de los votos en cada cámara. Sin embargo, la anulación de vetos es extremadamente infrecuente.

Típicamente, los proyectos de ley aprobados por mayoría simple entran en vigencia el 1 de enero del año calendario siguiente. Los estatutos urgentes, aumentos de impuestos y otros proyectos de ley específicos entran en vigencia en cuanto se convierten en ley.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Californians typically pay more in federal taxes than the state receives in federal spending each year, making California a “donor state.”1All years in this fact sheet represent federal fiscal years (FFYs), which begin every October 1 and end the following September 30. The data presented in this fact sheet differs from the data included in an earlier Budget Center fact sheet — published in February 2025 — for a few reasons. First, this fact sheet analyzes data for nine fiscal years (FFYs 2015 to 2023), whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed these data for only a single fiscal year (FFY 2022). Second, this fact sheet displays federal spending data in two ways — with and without federal COVID funds — whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed spending data only with COVID funds. Finally, the data for FFY 2022 differ across the two fact sheets because the Rockefeller Institute of Government recently revised the FFY 2022 data. Between federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015 and 2023, federal taxes paid by California residents and businesses exceeded federal spending in every year except 2020, 2021, and 2023.2FFY 2023 is the most recent year for which the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s 50-state analysis is available. In other words, California was a donor state in six out of the nine fiscal years for which data are available.

California likely would have been a donor state in additional years during this period if not for federal COVID funding. Since 2020, federal expenditures have included the substantial — but temporary — support provided to states, businesses, and individuals to address the COVID pandemic. These one-time COVID funds caused federal expenditures in California to jump significantly, which in turn has understated California’s role as a donor state.3In the four years leading up to the start of the pandemic in FFY 2020, annual federal spending in California hovered between $400 billion and $450 billion. That number jumped to over $750 billion in FFY 2020 as the pandemic took hold and federal COVID spending ramped up. Federal spending in California remained above $600 billion as recently as FFY 2023.

Excluding temporary COVID funds from the analysis provides a more accurate picture of the long-term underlying fiscal trends and California’s true position as a donor state. Using this alternative analysis, between FFYs 2015 and 2023, Californians paid more in federal taxes than the state received in federal spending in eight out of these nine years (2020 is the exception). For example, Californians’ federal taxes exceeded federal spending — excluding COVID spending — by $55 billion in 2021, $101 billion in 2022, and $17 billion in 2023.

Why Is California a Donor State?

Why do Californians typically contribute more to the federal treasury than the state gets back in federal funding? The explanation touches on both the spending and revenue sides of the equation.

On the spending side:

  • States with higher poverty rates, a large population of older adults, major federal facilities (such as military bases), a large volume of federal contracts, and/or a substantial federal employee presence are likely to receive a disproportionate share of federal funds. These factors contribute to relatively higher federal spending in many other states (on a per capita basis) compared to California.

On the revenue side:

  • States with more wealthy residents and high per capita incomes — like California — account for a disproportionate share of federal tax revenue due to the progressive federal tax system.
Portrait of child girl eating on snack time at school

H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget

H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.

See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.

With Trump-Era Federal Budget Cuts, the Gap Between California’s Federal Tax Contributions and Federal Spending in the State Will Increase

In July 2025, President Trump signed into law a budget bill (H.R. 1) that will deeply harm Californians by cutting spending for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education in order to help fund massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, and increased immigration enforcement. The spending cuts included in H.R. 1 will disproportionately impact families with low incomes, immigrants, and communities of color, pushing more people into poverty and widening racial and economic inequities across the state.

State policymakers can mitigate the harm of H.R. 1., however, the massive federal funding cuts are too large to be entirely backfilled with state dollars. As a result, essential services like Medi-Cal health coverage and CalFresh food assistance are in jeopardy as state leaders assess how to address the impact of harmful federal reductions.

Moreover, as the provisions of H.R. 1 are implemented through 2028, the gap between what Californians pay in federal taxes and federal spending in the state will grow larger.

This is because Californians will continue to disproportionately contribute to federal revenues whereas California will get back even less of those dollars as deep cuts to health care, food assistance, and other vital services take effect.

Federal Tax Dollars Should Be Used to Strengthen Essential Services

California contributes much to the nation thanks to the creativity, vitality, and hard work of the nearly 40 million people of diverse backgrounds who call the Golden State their home.

Federal tax dollars — including Californians’ very generous contributions to the federal treasury — should be used to strengthen vital public services and help all people make ends meet, rather than helping corporations and the wealthy avoid paying their fair share of federal taxes.

Update: This fact sheet was revised in August 2025 to include newly released federal tax and spending data from the Rockefeller Institute of Government (federal fiscal years 2015–2023), with revised figures and updated charts.

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

  • 1
    All years in this fact sheet represent federal fiscal years (FFYs), which begin every October 1 and end the following September 30. The data presented in this fact sheet differs from the data included in an earlier Budget Center fact sheet — published in February 2025 — for a few reasons. First, this fact sheet analyzes data for nine fiscal years (FFYs 2015 to 2023), whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed these data for only a single fiscal year (FFY 2022). Second, this fact sheet displays federal spending data in two ways — with and without federal COVID funds — whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed spending data only with COVID funds. Finally, the data for FFY 2022 differ across the two fact sheets because the Rockefeller Institute of Government recently revised the FFY 2022 data.
  • 2
    FFY 2023 is the most recent year for which the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s 50-state analysis is available.
  • 3
    In the four years leading up to the start of the pandemic in FFY 2020, annual federal spending in California hovered between $400 billion and $450 billion. That number jumped to over $750 billion in FFY 2020 as the pandemic took hold and federal COVID spending ramped up. Federal spending in California remained above $600 billion as recently as FFY 2023.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Cuts to Health Care, Food, Housing, and More Put Latinx and Immigrant Californians at Risk, New Report Finds

SACRAMENTO, CA — The California Budget & Policy Center (Budget Center), in collaboration with the California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC), released a new report today: How Federal and State Budget Cuts Threaten Latinx Californians. The report details how harmful recent federal and state budget cuts are slashing access to health care, food assistance, child care, … Continued

Corporate profits have skyrocketed in recent years while workers’ wages have stagnated and families struggle to keep up with the rising costs of living. Despite these disparities, large tax breaks, such as the “Water’s Edge” loophole, remain in place. Big corporations have also benefited greatly from the 2017 Trump tax cuts and stand to receive more benefits from the federal tax package recently signed into law. Corporate tax breaks largely benefit corporate shareholders, who are disproportionately wealthy and white, widening economic and racial inequality

California policymakers should ensure that profitable corporations pay their fair share in state corporate taxes — which represent a tiny share of their expenses — to support the public services that Californians need. This is especially urgent to help mitigate the harms of the harmful federal cuts to health care, food assistance, and other basic needs programs. 

State leaders should end the state’s most costly corporate tax break — the water’s edge loophole, which allows corporations to avoid around $3 billion in California taxes each year and deprives the state of needed resources to address the most pressing concerns facing Californians.

As state leaders look to blunt the harm of the federal budget on Californians with low incomes and the state’s finances, it’s clear that California’s corporate tax structure is in need of repair. While large, profitable corporations benefit from new federal tax breaks, California policymakers must ensure these businesses pay their fair share in state taxes. There is no one-size-fits-all solution: different options can all complement each other. For example, limiting corporate tax credit usage will raise revenues by itself but will also prevent erosion of the revenue potential from ending the water’s edge loophole.

MORE IN THIS SERIES

To learn more about the water’s edge election, net operating losses, tax credits, corporate tax rates, and options for common-sense reform, see the other fact sheets in this series:

The Problem: Multinational Corporations Avoid Billions in State Taxes by Shifting US Profits Offshore

Large corporations that have affiliated companies outside of the US can use a variety of mechanisms to artificially shift hundreds of billions in US profits to foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates — known as tax havens — to reduce their federal and state taxes. In fact, corporations report to federal tax authorities that their profits in some well-known tax havens are multiple times larger than the entire economies of these places, indicating that most if not all of those profits are only there on paper. 

As one example of how a corporation might accomplish this, a US corporation can transfer ownership of intellectual property like patents or trademarks to a foreign affiliate and pay the affiliate for the right to use them, effectively moving income off the books of the US corporation while keeping it within the larger corporate group. This is a tactic that industries such as tech and pharmaceuticals can easily employ, but corporations across the board have options to engage in offshore profit shifting and tax avoidance.

Corporations Can Greatly Reduce Profits Subject to Taxation — and Their Taxes — by Shifting Profits Abroad and Using the Water’s Edge Election

CORPORATE GROUP TOTAL PROFITS

If the example corporation above uses the default Worldwide Combined Reporting method, all worldwide profits are included: $5B + $500M + $200M + $4B + $2B = $11.7 Billion.

If the corporation chooses to use Water’s Edge Election, only domestic profits are included (yellow oval): $5B + $500M + $200M = $5.7 Billion.

Note: This is a simplified example.

California’s “water’s edge election” allows corporations to choose whether or not to include the profits of their foreign affiliates when they report their total profits that can be divided up among, or “apportioned” to, the states where they are subject to tax.1Additionally, while some groups of related corporations may elect to file a group tax return in California, each corporation may file separate returns but are still required to combine profits at the corporate group level first, before apportioning profits between taxing jurisdictions and individual corporate entities.Generally, profits are apportioned to states by multiplying the total profits by the “sales factor”, which is determined by dividing the corporation’s sales into the state by its total sales. For filers electing the water’s edge method, the denominator is only domestic sales.

The water’s edge election creates several issues:

  • Smaller, domestic businesses likely pay higher shares of their income in taxes than large multinational corporations because they are unable to shift profits overseas.
  • Giving corporations the option of two filing methods means they will always choose the one that lowers their tax bill. For corporations with significant offshore profits, the water’s edge method will likely result in lower taxes. If corporations have domestic profits and foreign losses, using the “worldwide combined reporting” method — where all worldwide profits and losses are combined — would result in a lower tax bill.
  • Allowing corporations to ignore foreign profits can encourage them to shift profits to foreign tax havens and avoid state taxes by using the water’s edge election.

Maintaining the water’s edge election will cost the state an estimated $3.1 billion in 2024-25, increasing to $3.5 billion by 2026-27, according to the Department of Finance.

The Solution: Close the Water’s Edge Loophole and Require Worldwide Combined Reporting

Requiring large multinational corporations to use the worldwide combined reporting method would eliminate the state tax benefit of shifting profits abroad and close this loophole, resulting in additional revenue for California. Under this method, corporations are required to include the income of all their domestic and foreign affiliates in their total profits before determining what share is taxable by each state. This is already the default tax filing method for corporations subject to tax in California that don’t elect the water’s edge method, so some corporations currently use this method when it is beneficial for them.

In tandem with requiring worldwide combined reporting, policymakers could take steps to prevent corporations from underreporting their sales into California, driving down the “sales factor” used to determine the share of their profits that can be taxed in California, and ultimately reducing their state taxes. For example, policymakers can clarify state law to ensure corporations report the final destination of their sales — not the location of intermediaries — for the purpose of the sales factor, and require more robust reporting on the locations of sales to allow tax authorities to better identify cases when a corporation may be underreporting. This is a reform that should generate additional revenue on its own, but would also help prevent the erosion of revenues that could be gained from requiring worldwide combined reporting, as requiring corporations to report their global profits may lead them to find other ways to reduce their California tax bill, like underreporting sales into the state.

Ending the water’s edge loophole for large corporations and requiring worldwide combined reporting is a common-sense reform to ensure corporations contribute a fair share of their profits in California taxes to support the state services and infrastructure that allow companies, their workers, and their consumers to thrive.

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

  • 1
    Additionally, while some groups of related corporations may elect to file a group tax return in California, each corporation may file separate returns but are still required to combine profits at the corporate group level first, before apportioning profits between taxing jurisdictions and individual corporate entities.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

In California, workers’ wages have stagnated and families struggle to keep up with the rising costs of living, while corporate profits have skyrocketed. Yet many profitable corporations in California pay zero or very little in state taxes year after year. 

Big corporations have also benefited greatly from the 2017 Trump tax cuts and are poised to receive more benefits from the federal tax and budget bill just enacted by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans. Large tax breaks for corporations widen economic and racial inequality because they largely benefit corporate shareholders, who are disproportionately wealthy and white. 

California policymakers should ensure that profitable corporations pay their fair share in state corporate taxes — which represent a tiny share of their expenses — to support the public services that Californians need and help mitigate the harms of federal cuts to health care, food assistance, and other basic needs programs. 

State leaders can prevent profitable corporations from completely wiping out their tax bills with amassed tax credits by instituting permanent annual caps on business credits and deductions. In practice, this would ensure that corporations contribute to the state services and infrastructure they rely on to operate their business, just like all Californians do. 

As state leaders look to blunt the harm of the federal budget on Californians with low incomes and the state’s finances, it’s clear that California’s corporate tax structure is in need of repair. While large, profitable corporations benefit from new federal tax breaks, California policymakers must ensure these businesses pay their fair share in state taxes. There is no one-size-fits-all solution: different options can all complement each other. For example, limits on business tax credits and net operating loss (NOL) deductions are key to preventing the erosion of the potential revenues that could be generated from eliminating the water’s edge tax loophole and increasing the tax rate on highly profitable corporations.

MORE IN THIS SERIES

To learn more about the water’s edge election, net operating losses, tax credits, corporate tax rates, and options for common-sense reform, see the other fact sheets in this series:

Highly Profitable Corporations Can Largely Avoid State Taxes With Tax Credits and Net Operating Loss Deductions

A large share of corporations in California pay nothing above the meager $800 minimum franchise tax that most businesses that are incorporated, registered, or doing business in California are required to pay. Nearly half of all profitable corporations filing tax in California in 2023 — more than 300,000 corporations — paid nothing more than the $800 minimum tax, even though they collectively had $11.7 billion in state profits, according to preliminary data from the state’s Franchise Tax Board. This means they were able to eliminate their regular tax liability by either zeroing out their taxable income with net operating loss deductions, zeroing out their tax bill with tax credits, or some combination of the two. This number does not include corporations that were able to greatly reduce their tax bills but still paid some amount above the minimum tax. Unfortunately, there is no public data available indicating the number of corporations that pay minuscule shares of their profits in state taxes, or which corporations they are. However, public data show that many profitable corporations are able to avoid paying taxes at the federal level. While there are some differences in tax avoidance opportunities for corporations between federal and state law, some corporations paying low or no federal taxes may also be able to reduce or zero out their state taxes using similar state-level tax breaks.

How can corporations pay next to nothing in state taxes when they are profitable? 

While business tax calculations can be very complicated, in general a corporation1This is a simplified example that does not include all the complexities of corporate tax calculations.:

  1. Determines its final tax bill by subtracting any tax credits it has available.
  2. Determines its total profits by subtracting business expenses from its total revenues/sales. For corporations that are part of a group of affiliated corporations, this calculation includes the profits of the entire combined group. However, multinational corporations can choose to use the “water’s edge election” and exclude the profits of their foreign subsidiaries, which can reduce their profits subject to state taxes and therefore their tax bill.
  3. Determines the share of these total profits that is attributable to California and to each member of the corporate group by multiplying profits by a “sales” factor — the ratio of the corporations’ California sales to total sales.
  4. Determines its taxable income for state tax purposes by deducting any net operating losses (NOLs) it has available.
  5. Determines its taxes due before applying tax credits by multiplying its taxable income by the applicable tax rate.2  While the state does have an “alternative minimum tax” for C corporations that utilize certain tax preferences, this does not prevent corporations from wiping out their taxes with credits, and impacts very few corporations. In 2022 and 2023,only around 1% of C corporation filers paid the alternative minimum tax, generating $100 million or less in state revenues (data is preliminary for 2023).

A net operating loss occurs when a business experienced losses in prior years, meaning its expenses exceeded its revenues. Those losses can be carried forward and used to reduce its taxable income in future years, and thus its tax bill.3NOLs can be carried forward for up to 20 years after the loss occurred, at which time any unused NOLs expire. In total, corporations reduced their taxable income by around $30 billion in 2023 and had more than $1.3 trillion in unused NOLs that can be carried forward and deducted from profits in future years, according to preliminary Franchise Tax Board data.
NOLs, if large enough, could reduce taxable income to zero, in which case the business would pay no more than the state’s $800 minimum franchise tax. 

If a business still has taxable income after subtracting NOLs, the applicable tax rate — 8.84% for C corporations and 1.5% for S corporations — is then applied to determine its tax liability. But many businesses can then reduce their tax liability on a dollar-for-dollar basis if they have research and development (R&D) credits, film production credits, or other types of business credits. Some may even reduce their regular tax bill down to zero and would only pay the $800 minimum tax.

Like NOLs, business tax credits can also be carried forward to future years if their credits exceed the taxes they owe in the current year. According to data last reported by the Franchise Tax Board for the 2020 tax year, corporations had more than $40 billion in unused R&D credits that could be used to offset their future tax bills.4 This information is no longer reported by the Franchise Tax Board.

The R&D credit is by far the state’s largest business tax credit. The credit cost California more than $2.5 billion in 2023 and was claimed by over 4,600 corporations across various industrial sectors, according to preliminary Franchise Tax Board data. While research has generally found state R&D tax credits to increase the amount of R&D taking place in a state, the evidence is mixed on the size of the impact and their overall economic effects. Additionally, California’s credit has never been rigorously studied. The California State Auditor noted nearly ten years ago that, because there is no regular oversight or evaluation of the credit, the auditor’s office could not determine whether the credit was fulfilling its purpose or benefitting the state’s economy. Thus, it is unclear whether the billions of dollars the state spends on the credit each year are an effective use of public funds — especially given that those dollars are not available to spend on other public services that could potentially provide greater economic benefits.

While the Franchise Tax Board does not report tax credit data for individual corporations, some of these corporations do report in their public financial filings the amount of California credits — particularly R&D credits — they have available to offset future tax liability. For example, Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and Apple report that they have $6.4 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively, in California R&D credits that they can use to reduce their California taxes in the future. This means that even if companies like this with large stockpiles of credits were subject to a higher tax rate in the future, some of them could largely avoid paying more in tax as long as they still have sufficient credits available for use.

Profitable Corporations Shouldn’t Be Able to Wipe Their Entire Tax Burden: State Policymakers Should Place Annual Limits on Net Operating Loss Deductions and Tax Credits

California policymakers can make sure profitable corporations pay their fair share in state taxes by enacting permanent annual limits on NOL deductions and tax credits. 

State leaders have temporarily limited NOLs and tax credits multiple times in response to budget shortfalls. In 2020, in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis, state leaders enacted a $5 million limit on tax credits that businesses could use in a given year and a pause on the use of NOL deductions for businesses with state profits above $1 million. Those limitations were in effect for tax years 2020 and 2021. However, even with those limitations in place, a large share of profitable corporations still paid nothing more than the $800 minimum tax in those years, as shown in the first chart above.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated in 2022 that the $5 million tax credit limit likely impacted fewer than 100 corporations, since most businesses claim tax credits below that amount. The credit limit is estimated to increase state revenues by $2 billion or more annually in years when it’s in effect.

Faced with another shortfall in 2024, policymakers still re-enacted these limits for tax years 2024, 2025, and 2026.

BAD BUDGETING

Breaking from tradition — and likely to appease corporate opponents to these limits — policymakers also included a provision in the 2024-25 budget that will allow businesses impacted by the temporary tax credit limitation to claim refunds after 2026 for the credits that they were prohibited from taking during the limitation period. In other words, they can receive cash back if their delayed credits exceed the taxes they owe in those years. Historically, refundable tax credits have only been available for low-income families and individuals in California as a way to boost their incomes. Allowing corporations to claim refunds for these credits will cost the state more than $1 billion annually for several years beginning in 2027, as the corporations electing to receive refunds must spread the refund out over several years. Policymakers could avoid these costs in the out years by repealing this refundability provision.

Policymakers have several options to limit business tax credits to a reasonable amount on an ongoing basis. They could opt to make the current temporary $5 million limit permanent instead of letting it expire in 2027. They could also reduce that limit in the near term to generate additional revenues immediately. Another option is to limit the total credits that a business can use in any year to a percentage of the taxes it would otherwise owe that year. In the longer term, rigorous analyses on the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of specific business tax credits — such as the R&D credit and the film tax credit — are warranted, which would inform future policy reforms such as eliminating or restructuring credits determined to be ineffective or where the costs exceed the benefits.

Similar to limiting tax credits, state leaders could limit the amount of NOL deductions that can be taken in a given year as a percentage of the business’ state profits. While there are legitimate reasons to allow businesses to use NOL deductions to “smooth out” their income over multiple years, since income may be volatile for some businesses, there is also an argument to be made that businesses should not be able to pay nothing or next to nothing in years when they are generating significant profits. So it is reasonable to impose annual limits to prevent corporations from entirely wiping out their taxable income and in turn, their tax bill. At the federal level, NOL deductions are limited to 80% of a corporation’s taxable income. California could adopt that limit or enact a tighter limit to raise additional revenue and ensure corporations are paying taxes on more than 20% of their profits.

Placing reasonable caps on business credits and deductions — particularly in combination with the other corporate tax reforms such as eliminating the water’s edge loophole and increasing the tax rate on the most profitable corporations — will ensure corporations contribute a fair share of their profits in California taxes to support the state services and infrastructure that allow companies, their workers, and their consumers to thrive.

  • 1
    This is a simplified example that does not include all the complexities of corporate tax calculations.
  • 2
     While the state does have an “alternative minimum tax” for C corporations that utilize certain tax preferences, this does not prevent corporations from wiping out their taxes with credits, and impacts very few corporations. In 2022 and 2023,only around 1% of C corporation filers paid the alternative minimum tax, generating $100 million or less in state revenues (data is preliminary for 2023).
  • 3
    NOLs can be carried forward for up to 20 years after the loss occurred, at which time any unused NOLs expire. In total, corporations reduced their taxable income by around $30 billion in 2023 and had more than $1.3 trillion in unused NOLs that can be carried forward and deducted from profits in future years, according to preliminary Franchise Tax Board data.
  • 4
    This information is no longer reported by the Franchise Tax Board.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!