Unclaimed property voluntary disclosure program.
If enacted, AB 2773 would specifically amend the Code of Civil Procedure and create Section 1577.6, thereby replacing existing provisions related to unclaimed property with a structured system for voluntary disclosure. This initiative intends to alleviate burdens on property holders who may have previously delayed reporting and encourages proactive compliance with state regulations. By waiving interest and penalties for those fulfilling their disclosure obligations, the bill seeks to enhance state revenues while easing the financial strain on those who have unreported or unclaimed property.
Assembly Bill 2773, introduced by Assembly Member Acosta, establishes a framework for a voluntary disclosure program for unclaimed property managed by the California Controller. This bill is aimed at allowing holders of unclaimed property that has exceeded its dormancy period an opportunity to report this property without incurring interest and penalties. The bill emphasizes the need for compliance and provides a mechanism for holders to sort out unclaimed properties over the past decade, ensuring they are appropriately managed before escheatment to the state.
The sentiment surrounding AB 2773 appears largely supportive, especially among lawmakers who see it as a positive step toward increased accountability and improved financial management of state resources. Stakeholders, including business owners who may have unclaimed properties, have expressed a cautious interest in the program. Additionally, there seems to be an acknowledgment of the necessity for such measures to avoid loss of property to the state through escheatment while ensuring that holders of unclaimed property can meet their obligations without excessive fees.
A notable point of contention pertains to the eligibility criteria for participation in the voluntary disclosure program. Holders under current audit or investigation are precluded from engaging in the program, which may lead to criticisms regarding fairness and access. Advocates for property holders argue that limits on access could exacerbate issues for those already facing regulatory compliance challenges. Ensuring that the program truly serves its intended purpose of encouraging compliance without punitive measures is vital for its success.