This bill creates a limited exclusion from California gross income for overtime wages paid to qualifying first responders and certain ambulance personnel when those overtime hours are worked in direct response to, or in support of, emergency operations in areas under a duly declared state or local emergency. The exclusion applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030, and the statute is written to repeal on December 1, 2030.
The measure gives the Franchise Tax Board authority to provide guidance and to issue regulations (including verification and reporting rules) and explicitly removes the FTB's routine rulemaking procedures (Chapter 3.5) for any guidance it issues under this section. The Legislature frames the policy as a financial recognition for extraordinary emergency service while stating there is no data available to collect or report about the exclusion, which raises evaluation and implementation questions for tax administrators and employers responsible for payroll and withholding adjustments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill excludes qualified overtime wages from California gross income for certain first responders and ambulance personnel when the overtime is tied to emergency operations in areas under a declared state or local emergency. It applies to tax years beginning 2025 through 2029 and includes an explicit repeal date of December 1, 2030. The Franchise Tax Board may issue guidance and regulations, and the Legislature exempts FTB-issued rules and guidelines under this provision from the Administrative Procedure Act's Chapter 3.5 process.
Who It Affects
Deployed first responders as defined in Government Code section 8562 and emergency ambulance personnel employed by agencies contracted under Health and Safety Code section 1797.230 are directly eligible. Employers (public and private) that pay overtime, payroll and benefits administrators, the Franchise Tax Board, and local governments that declare emergencies will have operational and reporting responsibilities.
Why It Matters
This creates a narrowly targeted tax expenditure intended to reduce state tax on overtime paid during declared emergencies, introducing new verification and reporting demands and reducing state tax receipts. Compliance officers, payroll teams, and tax auditors must plan for documentation standards, withholding changes, and possible audit procedures tailored to episodic emergency deployments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill carves out a state income tax exclusion for overtime wages that a qualifying first responder or designated ambulance worker receives for work that directly supports emergency operations in areas subject to a formal state or local emergency declaration. It is explicitly limited to pay tied to those declared emergency operations, not to ordinary overtime or hazard pay unconnected to a declared emergency.
Eligibility hinges on two cross-references: the bill relies on the Government Code definition of "first responder" and on Health and Safety Code provisions that identify ambulance personnel employed by entities contractually responsible for emergency ambulance services for a fire agency. That means municipal firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and formally designated ambulance contractors' employees may be covered if their overtime meets the "in relation to emergency operations" test.The Franchise Tax Board gets broad authority to set up verification, documentation, and reporting procedures and to adopt regulations necessary to carry out the exclusion.
The bill disapplies the normal Chapter 3.5 rulemaking requirements for any FTB rules or guidelines issued under this specific section, though it also permits formal regulations—so the agency will have a mix of enforceable regulations and non-APA guidance to define eligibility and proof.Operationally, the exclusion affects how overtime is treated on state returns and potentially how employers withhold for state income tax. The text does not specify employer withholding mechanics; it instead leaves withholding, documentation, and audit protocols to the FTB's forthcoming guidance or regulations.
The Legislature also limited the program to a narrow window and required a short statutory life: the exclusion applies for tax years starting in 2025 up to but not including tax years that begin on or after January 1, 2030, and the entire section is set to repeal on December 1, 2030.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The exclusion applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030, and the statutory provision is scheduled to be repealed on December 1, 2030.
Qualified overtime wages are limited to overtime paid for work performed directly in response to, or in support of, emergency operations in areas under a duly declared state or local emergency.
A 'qualified taxpayer' is either (A) a first responder as defined in Government Code §8562 who is officially deployed for the emergency, or (B) an EMT, paramedic, or ambulance driver employed by an entity contractually responsible for emergency ambulance services under Health & Safety Code §1797.230 and officially deployed for the emergency.
The Franchise Tax Board may issue rules, guidance, and regulations to implement the exclusion, may set verification and documentation requirements, and the bill exempts FTB-issued rules or guidelines under this section from the usual Chapter 3.5 (APA) procedural requirements.
To comply with Section 41 requirements, the Legislature states the exclusion's goal (recognizing extraordinary circumstances for first responders) and simultaneously declares there is 'no available data to collect or report' about the exclusion, which limits ex ante measurement of the tax expenditure.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Temporary exclusion from gross income
This subsection is the operative core: it declares that qualified overtime wages are not included in California gross income for covered taxable years. Practically, that changes the state tax base for affected employees for those specific overtime payments; the exclusion reduces taxable income reported on state returns, but it does not address federal tax treatment or how employers must handle state withholding.
Definitions of qualified overtime and eligible workers
Subdivision (b) defines the scope of the exclusion. It ties eligibility to work 'directly in response to, or in support of, emergency operations' and references existing statutory definitions for 'first responder' (Gov. Code §8562) and emergency ambulance contractors (Health & Safety Code §1797.230). The cross‑references mean eligibility depends on parallel statutes that define job categories and deployment status rather than creating new occupational classes inside the tax code.
FTB authority: guidance, regulation, and APA carve‑out
Subdivision (c) authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to issue guidance, procedures, and regulations to implement the exclusion and to set verification and reporting rules. It also removes Chapter 3.5's procedural constraints for any rule, guideline, or procedure the FTB issues under this section—effectively allowing quicker, less formal guidance—while still allowing the agency to promulgate formal regulations when it deems necessary. That combination gives FTB flexibility but reduces the notice-and-comment transparency normally associated with administrative rulemaking for guidance issued under this provision.
Sunset and repeal
This subsection sets an explicit expiration: the exclusion remains operative only until December 1, 2030, at which point the section repeals. Together with the taxable-year language, the statutory design confines the program to discrete tax years and prevents the exclusion from becoming permanent without additional legislative action.
Statutory findings for tax-expenditure reporting
To satisfy Revenue & Taxation Code reporting rules for new tax expenditures, the Legislature inserts two findings: a stated policy goal (recognition of extraordinary circumstances for first responders) and an assertion that no data are available to collect or report regarding the exclusion. That second finding undercuts typical evaluation metrics and signals that ex post assessment could be difficult without new data collection requirements.
Immediate effective date as a tax levy
The bill declares itself a tax levy under Article IV of the California Constitution and makes the act immediately effective. That mechanism is typical for tax measures that alter revenues and means FTB and employers may need to operationalize changes quickly for the affected taxable years.
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
- Deployed first responders (per Gov. Code §8562): They receive state tax relief on overtime pay earned during officially declared emergency deployments, directly increasing after‑tax take‑home pay for those hours.
- Ambulance personnel employed by contracted emergency ambulance entities (Health & Safety Code §1797.230): EMTs, paramedics, and ambulance drivers who are officially deployed during declared emergencies can exclude qualifying overtime from California gross income.
- Households of affected workers: Families of deployed first responders gain short‑term financial relief through reduced state tax liabilities on overtime earned during the emergency window.
- Local emergency response agencies and fire agencies: The exclusion can indirectly support staffing and retention during disasters by improving the net compensation of overtime work, which may help agencies rely on overtime rather than hiring temporary staff.
Who Bears the Cost
- State general fund: The exclusion reduces taxable income and therefore state income tax revenue for the covered period, producing a fiscal cost that must be absorbed elsewhere in the budget.
- Franchise Tax Board: The agency must design verification, documentation, and reporting protocols and may face increased audit activity and appeals tied to eligibility determinations for episodic emergency pay.
- Employers and payroll administrators (public and private): Payroll teams must identify qualifying overtime, modify withholding practices or reporting, maintain supporting documentation, and respond to FTB verification requests—adding administrative work and potentially implementation costs.
- Local governments and agencies that declare emergencies: Agencies may be asked to certify deployments or provide documentation, creating additional administrative burdens for incident commanders and human resources units during and after emergencies.
- Private ambulance contractors: These entities must track and document which overtime hours qualify under their contract-based responsibilities and may bear compliance costs to support employee claims for the exclusion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the public interest in quickly delivering targeted financial relief to frontline emergency workers outweighs the administrative, fiscal, and accountability costs of creating a narrowly tailored, temporary tax exclusion that is difficult to verify and measure. Speed and flexibility for relief conflict with the need for clear, auditable rules and meaningful data to evaluate whether the tax expenditure achieved its stated goals.
The bill trades a narrow, politically salient tax benefit for increased administrative complexity and potential audit exposure. Narrow eligibility tied to 'work performed directly in response to, or in support of, emergency operations' leaves room for interpretive disputes: is overtime spent on logistics, mutual‑aid coordination, or shifted duties 'in support of' the emergency?
The FTB will likely have to draw fine lines that affect many workers' take‑home pay, and those lines will be fertile ground for disputes and appeals.
The statutory carve‑out from Chapter 3.5 for FTB guidance reduces procedural burdens on the agency but also reduces transparency and public notice around how eligibility will be determined in practice. Although the bill allows formal regulations, relying on non‑APA guidance for key verification standards creates legal and administrative uncertainty.
The Legislature's simultaneous acknowledgment that no data are available to report on the exclusion means policymakers will have limited ability to assess cost‑effectiveness at sunset, and the state will lack baseline metrics to measure whether the exclusion influenced workforce behavior, retention, or emergency response outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.