The Lester & Cantrell Legal Blog
Riverside County Ordinance 949 gives OK for home kitchens to sell food
Riverside County Ordinance 949 OKs Home Cooked Meals.
Riverside County has become California’s first county to kick off the state’s new home kitchen law (Assembly Bill 626) with Ordinance 949.
Under the ordinance, residents of Riverside County can sell up to 30 home cooked meals per day, and 60 per week, providing they follow a few guidelines. Interested “microenterprise home kitchens” must pass a safety certification exam, pay $651 for the permit, and adhere to California Health and Safety Code Guidelines.
The Ordinance offers a break for entrepreneurial residents who may not be able to afford a traditional brick-and-mortar restaurant or food truck. However, opposing lawmakers cited concerns about sanitation and health inspections.
For more information about the law, go to https://www.rivcoeh.org/Programs/cottage_food
Photo by Caroline Attwood on Unsplash
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
AB 147 to collect sales taxes from out-of-state sellers
A new law, AB147, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday. Photo by Bench Accounting on Unsplash.
A new law, AB147, was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, requiring Amazon and eBay to collect sales taxes from out-of-state sellers who earn more than $500,000 annually in California. Sacramento officials predict that by 2021, the law will generate an additional $759 million in taxes.
The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Autumn Burke (D-Inglewood), said: “AB 147 will level the playing field between California retailers and their out-of-state competitors. It also reduces administrative burdens for small online retailers, so they can spend time and resources to focus on their business and not tax compliance.”
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can collect sales taxes from companies outside their borders. On April 1, out-of-state sellers earning more than $100,000 in California sales (or those making more than 200 transactions) were required to register as a retailer and collect taxes. AB 147 raised the cap to $500,000 in hopes of protecting small businesses.
Learn more about the bill here.
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
AB 1162 aims to ban those little shampoo bottles from your hotel
AB 1162. Photo by Dan Smedley on Unsplash
The hospitality business has been hit with a number of new single-use plastic laws here in California, from the plastic straw ban in full service restaurants (AB 1884) to a proposed new law that would banish those mini bottles of toiletries from your hotel bathroom.
AB 1162, introduced by Assemblyman Ash Kalra, aims to rid hotels of all disposable toiletry containers by 2023. That means visitors would need to bring their own shampoos, mouthwash, etc. — or the hotels will have to switch to wall dispensers for these products. Violators of the proposed law would be punished with a $25 daily fine.
In 2018, Marriott International committed to the cause, citing environmental and cost-saving reasons, and the city of Santa Cruz also followed suit.
If the law passes, the California Hotel Lodging Association has requested for the bill to go into effect Jan. 1, 2025, for hotels with more than 50 rooms and 2026 for those with fewer than 50 rooms.
Follow the status of the AB 1162 bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1162
Photo by Dan Smedley on Unsplash
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
AB 1076 would seal criminal records for misdemeanor, non-violent offenses
AB 1076
More than 8 million California residents could get their criminal records sealed under a new bill aimed at helping offenders more easily find employment and housing.
According to the National Institute of Justice, people with criminal records are 50 percent less likely to get a job offer than those without one.
AB 1076 would wipe the slate clean (at no cost) for residents with misdemeanor and non-violent offenses, leaving the information only visible to law enforcement, judges and investigators. Currently, it costs roughly $3,700 to expunge a criminal record.
Anyone who has to register as a sex offender or has violated their probation would not be eligible.
The bill is expected to pass both houses and be signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, taking effect Jan. 1, 2021.
Read more about the bill here.
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
SB 37 would raise corporate tax rate for state’s wealthiest businesses
Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash
A new bill titled “Corporate Fair Share for California & Californians” (SB 37) was proposed by state lawmakers in Oakland today, recommending a two-tiered taxing system on our state’s wealthiest companies.
The bill, said its authors Senator Nancy Skinner and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, would generate $5 billion annually for K-12 education, community colleges and early childhood education.
The bill proposes two tiers of taxation. First, all companies with a net income over $10 million would pay a 10.84 percent corporate tax rate (compared to the current 8.84 percent).
Second, the bill takes aim at companies with large disparities between CEO and worker pay. The second tier of taxes would punish businesses who pay top-level managers more than 300 times their average worker with a tax rate of 14.84 percent.
If passed, the law would take effect on Jan. 1, 2020.
Follow the bill at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB37
Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
AB 25 would amend California Consumer Privacy Act
A new bill introduced by Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) would exclude employees from the definition of a “consumer” under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
This is an amendment to the CCPA — set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2020 — which “grants consumers various rights with regard to their personal information held by businesses, including the right to request a business to disclose specific pieces of personal information it has collected.”
As currently written, a consumer is broadly defined as “a natural person who is a California resident.”
Assembly Bill 25 (AB 25) clarifies that a consumer is not a “natural person whose personal information has been collected by a business in the course of a person acting as a job applicant or as an employee, contractor, or agent, on behalf of the business, to the extent their personal information is used for purposes compatible with the context of that person’s activities for the business as a job applicant, employee, contractor, or agent of the business.”
If passed, the bill would give California employees the right to require any CCPA covered business to:
(1) give them a copy of their personal information
(2) delete their personal information
(3) receive details about the collecting and sharing practices of their personal information.
Stay up to date on the status of this bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB25
Disclaimer
The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
Photo by Icons8 team on Unsplash
Follow us on social media