AB 1282 would create a state income tax deduction for unreimbursed out‑of‑pocket medical costs, capped at $5,000 per taxpayer per year, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030. The measure defines eligible costs as those not covered by insurance, recovered, or reimbursed, and requires the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to report annually on uptake and average deduction amounts.
The provision is temporary and includes a statutory sunset.
This matters for individuals with high medical expenses, tax preparers, and state budget analysts. The deduction reduces taxable income rather than providing a refundable credit, it explicitly prevents duplicative deductions, and it imposes FTB reporting obligations that carve an exception to tax return confidentiality for the narrow disclosure required by the bill.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill allows taxpayers to deduct up to $5,000 of out‑of‑pocket medical costs from California taxable income for certain tax years and requires the Franchise Tax Board to report annually on how many taxpayers claim the deduction and the average claim amount. It also instructs that any other deduction for the same medical costs must be reduced by the amount claimed under this section.
Who It Affects
Individuals who incur unreimbursed medical expenses (including those uninsured or underinsured), tax preparers who must apply the new deduction and coordinate it with other deductions, and the Franchise Tax Board, which must collect and publish specified aggregate data. The state budget bears the revenue loss from the deduction.
Why It Matters
By creating a targeted, temporary deduction, the bill provides direct tax relief to people with high out‑of‑pocket health costs without changing federal law. It establishes a narrow data‑collection mandate that trades limited confidentiality for legislative oversight and creates a measurable, time‑bound fiscal exposure for California's revenues.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1282 inserts a new section (17210) into California's Revenue and Taxation Code that lets taxpayers subtract unreimbursed medical spending from California taxable income for a limited period. The deduction is available for taxable years that start on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030; the law itself is written to expire at the end of 2030.
The deduction is not a credit — it reduces taxable income — and the statute caps the benefit at $5,000 per taxpayer per year.
The bill defines "out‑of‑pocket medical costs" narrowly: eligible amounts are those paid by the taxpayer that insurance (or another source) did not cover, recover, or reimburse. To prevent double benefits, the statute requires taxpayers to reduce any other deduction for the same medical costs by the amount they claim under this new provision.
Practically, that means preparers and software will need logic to detect overlapping deductions and ensure taxpayers do not deduct the same expense twice across different sections of the return.On administration, the Franchise Tax Board must report to the Legislature no later than December 1, 2026 and then every December 1 thereafter about the number of taxpayers who claimed the deduction and the average dollar value of those claims, to the extent data are available. The bill treats that reporting requirement as an exception to the usual tax return confidentiality rule referenced in Section 19542, allowing FTB to disclose the aggregated information specified.
Finally, the bill declares itself a tax levy and takes immediate effect upon enactment, and the statutory provision sunsets and is repealed in December 2030.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The deduction is available only for taxable years beginning on or after Jan 1, 2025 and before Jan 1, 2030, and the statute is written to be repealed on Dec 1, 2030.
The annual cap is $5,000 per taxpayer; the statute creates a maximum subtraction of up to $5,000 from California taxable income for eligible out‑of‑pocket medical costs.
The bill defines eligible expenses as medical costs paid by the taxpayer that are not covered by insurance, recovered, or reimbursed — creating potential questions about interactions with HSAs, FSAs, or third‑party reimbursements.
Taxpayers must reduce any other deduction for the same medical costs by the amount claimed under this section, preventing duplicative tax benefits for the same expense.
The Franchise Tax Board must report annually (first report due Dec 1, 2026) on the number of claimants and average deduction value; the reporting requirement is treated as an exception to tax‑return confidentiality rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Allow a timed deduction and set a $5,000 cap
Subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) establish the core benefit: for taxable years starting on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030 the taxpayer may claim a deduction equal to out‑of‑pocket medical costs, subject to a $5,000 annual limit. This frames the relief as a subtraction from taxable income (not a refundable credit) and fixes the fiscal exposure per individual taxpayer.
Defines eligible out‑of‑pocket medical costs
Subdivision (b) limits eligible expenses to medical costs paid by the taxpayer that are not covered by insurance, recovered, or reimbursed. That language is intentionally narrow and will force administrators and taxpayers to resolve how third‑party payments, health savings accounts, flexible spending reimbursements, and claim adjustments interact with eligibility.
Prevents duplicative deductions
Subdivision (c) requires that any other deduction otherwise allowed for the same amount of out‑of‑pocket medical costs be reduced by the amount claimed under this new section. In practice this prevents claiming the same expense twice (for example, once under an existing deduction and again under section 17210), but it creates bookkeeping and software‑logic requirements to coordinate among multiple deductions on a return.
Reporting, performance indicators, and confidentiality carve‑out
Subdivision (d) satisfies California's Section 41 requirements by naming the legislative goal (relief from rising health care costs) and prescribing two performance indicators: the count of taxpayers claiming the deduction and the average deduction amount. It directs the FTB to report annually beginning December 1, 2026 and treats that disclosure as an exception to Section 19542, allowing limited aggregated reporting despite general confidentiality rules. The provision anticipates measuring uptake but does not require demographic or income‑stratified analysis.
Sunset and immediate effect as a tax levy
Subdivision (e) sunsets the new section so it "remains in effect only until December 1, 2030," at which point it is repealed. Section 2 declares the act a tax levy and makes it immediately effective upon enactment. The combination compresses the window for taxpayer behavior changes and gives the FTB a finite period to implement systems and reporting.
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
- Individuals with high unreimbursed medical costs: The deduction directly lowers taxable income for those who pay sizable out‑of‑pocket medical bills and are therefore most likely to use the $5,000 cap.
- Uninsured and underinsured taxpayers: People without comprehensive coverage or with large cost‑sharing obligations (high deductibles, limited network coverage) are more likely to claim this deduction and see immediate tax relief.
- Tax preparers and tax software vendors: New filing logic and client intake questions create demand for services and software updates to calculate the deduction, ensure coordination with other deductions, and capture required reporting information.
Who Bears the Cost
- State General Fund: The deduction reduces state taxable income and therefore lowers personal income tax revenue; the fiscal impact depends on uptake and average claim amounts that the bill itself asks FTB to quantify.
- Franchise Tax Board: FTB must implement the deduction administratively, update forms and systems, and produce the mandated annual reports — tasks that require staff time and possibly appropriation for implementation costs.
- Taxpayers required to substantiate claims: Because the deduction targets unreimbursed amounts, taxpayers and preparers will need records (receipts, Explanation of Benefits adjustments) to support claims in case of audit, increasing compliance burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between delivering targeted near‑term tax relief to people facing high medical costs and the fiscal, administrative, and privacy costs that relief imposes: expanding relief increases revenue loss and implementation complexity, while tightly limiting the benefit reduces its effectiveness for the people it aims to help.
The bill trades a straightforward, limited relief for a mix of administrative and policy complications. First, the narrow definition of eligible costs raises questions about common payment flows: amounts paid into or reimbursed from HSAs/FSAs, insurer subrogation recoveries, and later claim adjustments may be ambiguous as to whether they are "recovered" or "reimbursed." That ambiguity will drive both FTB guidance requests and taxpayer uncertainty.
Second, the anti‑duplication rule reduces double dipping but shifts complexity to preparers and software vendors who must identify overlapping deductions across return lines and historical claims.
On the enforcement and privacy side, the reporting requirement gives the Legislature basic uptake metrics but is limited to count and average value; it does not require distributional analysis by income, age, or medical condition, limiting the usefulness of the data for equity or policy evaluation. The bill also carves an exception to tax confidentiality for the specified disclosure, which is narrow but raises predictable questions about what aggregate data FTB can or cannot release and whether that will create downstream privacy risks.
Finally, the short, fixed window and immediate effect create timing pressure: FTB must stand up new processes quickly and taxpayers must make filing decisions in a limited period, complicating cost estimates and behavioral responses that otherwise unfold slowly over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.