CA AB 1377
introducedIncome taxes: credits: motion picture credit.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 1377 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 1377 has been introduced but has not advanced to a vote. Latest recorded action (2026-06-09): Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
What is CA AB 1377 about?
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including numerous motion picture credits. Existing law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, allows a motion picture credit (motion picture credit 4.0) to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2025, and before July 1, 2030, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, and limits the aggregate amount of the credit that may be allocated for a fiscal year to $330,000,000, as specified. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to certify a credit amount equal to 96 percent of the total credit allocated to a qualified taxpayer, unless the qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan and the California Film Commission determines that the qualified taxpayer has met or made a good-faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as specified. This bill, for motion picture credit 4.0, if a qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would require the California Film Commission to determine whether the qualified taxpayer met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as provided. The bill would also correct erroneous cross-references in those provisions. Existing law also allows a credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year by a qualified motion picture produced in this state at a certified studio construction project. Existing law defines a qualified motion picture for these purposes in the same manner as the motion picture credit and additionally requires that the qualified motion picture provide a diversity workplan that is approved by the commission. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met or made a good faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would allow the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Who sponsors CA AB 1377?
McKinnor is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1377, joined by 4 cosponsors.
Description
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including numerous motion picture credits. Existing law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, allows a motion picture credit (motion picture credit 4.0) to be allocated by the California Film Commission on or after July 1, 2025, and before July 1, 2030, in an amount equal to 20% or 25% of qualified expenditures for the production of a qualified motion picture in this state, and limits the aggregate amount of the credit that may be allocated for a fiscal year to $330,000,000, as specified. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to certify a credit amount equal to 96 percent of the total credit allocated to a qualified taxpayer, unless the qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan and the California Film Commission determines that the qualified taxpayer has met or made a good-faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as specified. This bill, for motion picture credit 4.0, if a qualified taxpayer chooses to submit a diversity workplan, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would require the California Film Commission to determine whether the qualified taxpayer met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan, as provided. The bill would also correct erroneous cross-references in those provisions. Existing law also allows a credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2032, in an amount equal to 20% or 25%, or as modified, of qualified expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year by a qualified motion picture produced in this state at a certified studio construction project. Existing law defines a qualified motion picture for these purposes in the same manner as the motion picture credit and additionally requires that the qualified motion picture provide a diversity workplan that is approved by the commission. Existing law requires the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met or made a good faith effort to meet the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, would remove the good faith effort standard, and instead would allow the California Film Commission to increase a qualified motion picture applicant's credit percentage by 4 percentage points if the applicant has met the diversity goals in its diversity workplan. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-21
- Latest action
- 2026-06-09 — Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- McKinnorauthor
- Floracoauthor
- Ortegacoauthor
- Celeste Rodriguezcoauthor
- Smallwood-Cuevascoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-06-09
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-06-08
Ordered to second reading.
reading-1,reading-2
2026-06-08
From inactive file.
2025-09-08
Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Gonzalez.
2025-08-29
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-08-29
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 29).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-07-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (July 9). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-06-11
Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
referral-committee
2025-06-03
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-02
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 64. Noes 5. Page 1888.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-27
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-23
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 23).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-14
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-05-06
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (May 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-22
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-03-17
Referred to Coms. on A.,E.,S., & T. and REV. & TAX.
referral-committee
2025-02-24
Read first time.
reading-1
2025-02-22
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
2025-02-21
Introduced. To print.
introduction
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Revenue and Taxation]
2025-04-22 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (9)
- Elhawary: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Ortega: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Ward: yes
- Lackey: other
- Jeff Gonzalez: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-05-05 · pass · 5-1
Member-level votes (7)
- McKinnor: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- DeMaio: no
- Ta: other
Do pass.
2025-05-23 · pass · 11-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Calderon: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Solache: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Ta: other
- Sanchez: other
- Dixon: other
- Tangipa: other
AB 1377 McKinnor Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-03 · pass · 64-5
Member-level votes (79)
- Addis: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Lee: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Krell: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Ward: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Patel: yes
- Solache: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Papan: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Fong: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Soria: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Davies: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Hart: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Berman: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Bains: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Tangipa: no
- DeMaio: no
- Ellis: no
- Patterson: no
- Sanchez: no
- Hoover: other
- Gallagher: other
- Chen: other
- Lackey: other
- Ta: other
- Flora: other
- Hadwick: other
- Macedo: other
- Castillo: other
- Dixon: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-09 · pass · 4-0
Member-level votes (5)
- Ashby: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Valladares: other
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
Do pass
2025-08-29 · pass · 5-2
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: no
- Seyarto: no
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1377. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.