This bill creates a temporary, state income‑tax credit intended to cover the federal Petition for Alien Relative (I‑130) filing fee for qualifying individual taxpayers. The credit is tied to the federal filing method (paper or online) and is limited to taxpayers with adjusted gross income below set thresholds.
The measure matters because it uses the state tax code to subsidize a federal immigration filing cost, shifting the cost of family reunification toward the General Fund and creating new compliance and reporting duties for the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The structure — fixed dollar amounts, income caps, carryforward rules, and an explicit FTB reporting mandate — shapes who benefits and how the state monitors the policy’s uptake and fiscal impact.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes a credit that equals the federal I‑130 petition filing fee, specifying two fixed dollar amounts depending on filing method: $675 for a paper I‑130 and $625 for an online I‑130. The credit is written to apply to taxable years listed in the text as beginning on or after January 1, 2025, 2026 and before January 1, 2030, 2031.
Who It Affects
Natural‑person taxpayers who sponsor family‑based immigration petitions and whose adjusted gross income falls below the bill’s thresholds (married filing jointly/heads of household/surviving spouses: $250,000 or less; other individuals: $120,000 or less). It also affects the Franchise Tax Board (administration and reporting), tax preparers, and advocacy groups that assist petitioners.
Why It Matters
This is a direct state subsidy for a federal immigration filing cost; it reduces the out‑of‑pocket barrier to family reunification for eligible filers, creates a measurable fiscal exposure for the state, and establishes an explicit FTB reporting duty so the Legislature can track uptake and cost.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new California personal income‑tax credit aimed squarely at offsetting the federal I‑130 petition filing fee. It defines the credit by reference to the filing method (paper vs. online) and sets fixed dollar amounts rather than indexing the credit to future federal fee changes.
The statute limits claimants to ‘‘natural persons’’ and ties eligibility to adjusted gross income, excluding higher‑income filers by bright‑line thresholds.
Mechanically, the credit reduces a taxpayer’s ‘‘net tax’’ liability and the statute permits leftover credit amounts to be carried forward for multiple years until exhausted. The text also contains a cross‑cutting rule that the allowance of this credit requires adjustment of any other deduction or credit that would otherwise be claimed ‘‘for any amount of qualified income upon which the credit is based’’ — a provision that can affect interactions with other tax benefits and change the effective value of the credit in some returns.Administration falls to the Franchise Tax Board.
The bill requires taxpayers to supply information to the FTB on request, authorizes the board to specify form and manner of those disclosures, and mandates that the FTB report aggregate outcomes to the Legislature by a statutorily set date. The statute includes a legislative finding and two performance indicators (total dollars claimed and number of taxpayers receiving credits) that the Legislature will use to judge whether the credit meets its stated goal of supporting legal family reunification.Two implementation wrinkles are important for practitioners.
First, the credit’s dollar amounts are fixed in statute; if the federal government raises or lowers the I‑130 fee, the state credit will not automatically adjust. Second, the bill text contains duplicated and inconsistent effective‑date language (it lists two start years and two inoperative years), which will require drafting cleanup to avoid uncertainty about exactly which taxable years are covered.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The credit is codified as Section 17054.6 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
The statute lists two fixed credit amounts: $675 for a paper I‑130 and $625 for an online I‑130 (the bill does not index or tie the credit to future federal fee changes).
Only individual ‘‘natural persons’’ can claim the credit; entities (trusts, corporations, partnerships) are excluded by the statute’s definition of qualified taxpayer.
If the credit exceeds a claimant’s net tax for the year, the excess may be carried forward and used to reduce net tax in the following year and for the seven succeeding years.
The Franchise Tax Board must report aggregate outcomes to the Legislature by the date specified in the statute, and the bill treats that reporting requirement as an exception to the state’s usual taxpayer‑privacy disclosure restrictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Credit amount tied to I‑130 filing method
This paragraph establishes the core benefit: a credit equal to the I‑130 filing fee and then enumerates two dollar amounts depending on whether the petition was filed on paper or online. Practically, the fixed amounts mean the state subsidy may under‑ or over‑compensate petitioners if federal fees change. Tax and immigration advisers need to track filing method on the taxpayer’s documentation to support the claim.
Eligibility: who counts as a qualified taxpayer
The bill restricts eligibility to a ‘‘natural person’’ and imposes adjusted‑gross‑income caps: $250,000 or less for married filing jointly/heads of household/surviving spouses and $120,000 or less for other individuals. That language excludes business entities and creates bright‑line income gates; practitioners should prepare intake questions to screen clients for eligibility and collect AGI substantiation.
One credit per taxable year and joint‑filing limits
This subsection limits claim frequency: one credit per qualified taxpayer per year, and only one credit can be claimed on a joint return. It also bars both spouses from separately claiming the credit where they could have filed jointly but file separately — an important anti‑duplication mechanism that will affect marital filing strategy and client advisement.
Interaction with other tax benefits and carryforward
The statute requires reducing any deduction or credit that otherwise applies ‘‘for any amount of qualified income upon which the credit is based,’’ a drafting choice that will create technical interactions with other benefits; the bill also treats the credit as nonrefundable against net tax but allows excess amounts to be carried forward for up to seven years. Tax preparers must model the credit’s present value given a taxpayer’s expected future tax liabilities.
FTB reporting, legislative findings, and privacy exception
The bill directs the Franchise Tax Board to collect supporting information at its request and to report aggregate dollars claimed and taxpayer counts to the Legislature by a fixed date, and it explicitly makes that reporting an exception to a state privacy provision. The statute includes a legislative finding framing the credit’s policy goal and identifying two performance indicators for evaluation — signaling the Legislature wants measurable outputs, not just a one‑off subsidy.
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
- Low‑to‑middle income family sponsors who pay the I‑130 filing fee: the credit reduces the immediate out‑of‑pocket cost of filing an I‑130 for eligible individual taxpayers, lowering a barrier to family‑based petitions.
- Taxpayers who expect future taxable income: because excess credit can be carried forward up to seven years, taxpayers with limited current tax liability but expected future tax can benefit over time.
- Immigration assistance organizations and pro bono clinics: clients are more likely to pursue petitions when filing costs are reduced, increasing the client base and success rates for organizations that help with family reunification.
Who Bears the Cost
- State General Fund/FTB budget: the credit creates a measurable fiscal exposure and increases administrative duties for the Franchise Tax Board (processing claims, handling documentation, producing the required legislative report).
- Higher‑income taxpayers and excluded filers: by design the credit targets lower AGI taxpayers and therefore does not extend to higher‑income petitioners, which preserves revenue but concentrates benefits into defined income bands.
- Tax compliance and preparers: collecting evidence of I‑130 filing method, ensuring only one claim per eligible family, and handling carryforwards increases compliance complexity and practice costs for preparers and may raise audit exposure for claimants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between lowering the immediate cost of family‑based immigration (a public‑interest goal that supports reunification) and the fiscal, administrative, and equity trade‑offs of a state subsidy delivered through the income tax code: fixed statutory amounts and eligibility gates keep costs bounded but can misalign the subsidy with actual federal fees and exclude the poorest or non‑filing sponsors who need immediate, refundable relief.
Several implementation and policy tensions could complicate this credit. First, the statute fixes credit amounts by filing method rather than indexing them to federal filing fees; if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services changes its fee schedule, the state subsidy will drift relative to the federal cost.
That could leave some petitioners under‑subsidized or, conversely, create brief windfalls if the federal fee falls. Second, the bill’s language contains duplicated and inconsistent effective‑date entries (two different start years and two different inoperative years).
Without technical clean‑up, administrators and taxpayers could face litigation or inconsistent treatment about which taxable years are covered.
Third, the drafting choice to ‘‘reduce’’ other deductions or credits for amounts ‘‘upon which the credit is based’’ invites interpretive disputes about which items qualify as overlapping benefits and how to compute the reduction. Fourth, although the bill allows carryforwards, it does not make the credit refundable; taxpayers with no net tax must wait to realize its value, which undermines the immediacy of relief for the poorest filers.
Finally, the reporting exception to normal privacy rules raises questions about the level of detail the FTB may publish and the safeguards for sensitive taxpayer information, even where the statute contemplates aggregate reporting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.