SB 1045 amends Section 17001 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code — the clause that names and authorizes citation of the state’s Personal Income Tax Law. The legislative digest classifies the change as nonsubstantive and the bill does not alter tax rates, bases, credits, or enforcement mechanisms.
Although the substance of taxation remains unchanged, the bill is relevant to anyone who maintains statutory texts, prepares forms, cites California tax law, or manages legal research databases. The introduced text appears to contain duplicated words in the naming clause, which highlights the implementation risk of simple technical amendments and the need for precise drafting and editorial review before codification.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the statutory provision that sets the official name and citation for the Personal Income Tax Law (Revenue and Taxation Code § 17001). It is framed as a clerical change and does not modify substantive tax obligations, rates, or procedures.
Who It Affects
Primarily code editors, legal publishers, tax counsel, accountants, and database vendors who rely on canonical statutory text for citations, forms, and research; state legislative staff and the Office of Legislative Counsel will also handle the drafting and publication tasks.
Why It Matters
A technical rename or citation correction is normally routine, but the introduced text shows drafting anomalies that could propagate typographical errors into official code publications and commercial databases if not caught and corrected.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1045 targets a single administrative sentence: the provision that gives the Personal Income Tax Law its official name and citation. The bill does not alter any taxable income definitions, rates, credits, or administration rules; it only changes how the part is phrased and cited in the statutory text.
In practice, passage would produce a new printed and electronic version of Revenue and Taxation Code § 17001 for use by code publishers and legal databases. Tax practitioners and government offices will continue to apply the same substantive law; their only operational task would be to update citations and any internal cross‑references that rely on the exact statutory wording.Notably, the introduced text contains duplicated words in the clause that names the law.
That is likely a drafting or transcription error. If enacted in that form, the duplication would not change tax liabilities but could create confusion in official code copies and commercial systems until an editorial correction is issued.
The usual remedy is a conforming technical amendment or an editorial correction from the Secretary of State or Legislative Counsel’s office; those processes vary in timing and visibility across publishers.Because the change is nominal, no fiscal committee referral is required and the bill carries no appropriation. Still, the episode illustrates that even short, labeled “nonsubstantive” bills require careful quality control to avoid propagating typographical mistakes into the official codebase.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1045 amends Revenue and Taxation Code Section 17001, the provision that names and authorizes citation of the “Personal Income Tax Law.”, The legislative digest labels the amendment nonsubstantive; the bill does not change tax liabilities, rates, or enforcement authority.
The introduced text contains duplicated words in the naming clause (e.g.
“known known” and “cited cited”), indicating a probable drafting or transcription error in the bill as printed.
There is no appropriation and no referral to the fiscal committee under the bill’s digest metadata, consistent with a technical, non‑fiscal change.
If enacted as written, the principal downstream action will be updates to official code publications and commercial legal databases to reflect the revised citation language.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Update to the statute that names the Personal Income Tax Law
This single operative section replaces the current text of Revenue and Taxation Code § 17001 with new wording that governs how the part is known and cited. Mechanically, passage will change the official printed and electronic statutory language, which is what legal publishers and citation guides display and reference. The provision being amended is a caption/naming clause; it carries no tax policy content and does not alter definitions, tax computations, filing requirements, or enforcement provisions.
Practically, the change triggers administrative tasks: the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Secretary of State will post updated statutory text, vendors (Westlaw, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law, state code repositories) will ingest the change, and tax departments and counsel may update internal citation practices. If the introduced duplication remains uncorrected, an additional conforming amendment or editorial correction will be required to remove typographical repetition in the codified text.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State code editors and the Office of Legislative Counsel — a clarified, canonical citation reduces ambiguity in future statutory references and eases editorial maintenance.
- Legal publishers and database vendors — once updated, they maintain consistent citation data and avoid downstream citation errors.
- Tax attorneys and accountants — they gain a consistent, canonical citation for briefs, opinions, and compliance materials, reducing the need to explain or reconcile variant statutory wording.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative drafting staff and the Office of Legislative Counsel — they must detect, correct, and process any editorial errors and coordinate issuance of corrected text.
- Commercial legal publishers and database vendors — they must ingest and publish the revised statutory text and may need to push updates to customers (moderate administrative cost).
- State publication and document control units (Secretary of State, state printer) — they handle updates to official code publications and ensure the corrected version replaces any erroneous copies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is efficiency versus accuracy: legislatures need a quick mechanism to make small, nonpolicy fixes to statutory text, but accelerating technical amendments without rigorous editorial review risks introducing typographical or formatting errors that then propagate across official and commercial legal texts.
The bill is functionally a housekeeping change, but the introduced language appears to contain duplicated words in the clause that names the law. That drafting anomaly creates the primary implementation issue: if the legislature enacts a bill with typographical duplication, the duplication will be imported into the official code and every downstream publisher unless an editorial correction or follow‑up amendment is issued.
Resolving such errors consumes drafting and administrative resources and can cause temporary inconsistency between printed statutes, online state codes, and commercial databases.
Another tension concerns the treatment of apparent clerical changes: courts and agencies generally treat naming clauses and captions as non‑substantive, but poorly drafted text can produce unnecessary ambiguity in statutory citations used in briefs, regulations, and automated systems. There is also a process risk—labeling a change as nonsubstantive tends to shorten legislative and stakeholder scrutiny, which is efficient for genuine technical fixes but increases the chance that trivial bills carry unnoticed errors into the official record.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.