AB 1675 would bar corporations that contract (directly or via subcontract) with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or specified DHS components from claiming tax expenditures under California's Corporation Tax law for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2032. The measure creates a California Immigrant Resilience Fund and requires the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), in consultation with the Department of Finance, to estimate additional revenue generated by the change; the Controller must then transfer that estimated amount from the General Fund into the new fund for use—upon legislative appropriation—for immigration-related services including removal defense.
The bill is drafted as a tax levy that takes immediate effect and contains a December 1, 2032 repeal date. It also includes an intent clause that would bar certain pretax employer exclusions for pension and health contributions and authorizes the Governor and Attorney General to render the act inoperative for a single tax year if they jointly determine DHS activity is within lawful bounds and not instigating civil unrest.
Passage would require a two‑thirds legislative vote because it raises taxes within the meaning of the California Constitution.
At a Glance
What It Does
For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2032, the bill denies all tax expenditures available under the Corporation Tax law to corporations that contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (including specified components). It establishes the California Immigrant Resilience Fund and directs the Controller to transfer estimated additional revenue into that fund based on FTB calculations.
Who It Affects
Corporations that contract, directly or through subcontracts, with the Department of Homeland Security and its listed components; corporations subject to reporting under Government Code Section 13305; the Franchise Tax Board, Department of Finance, and State Controller for administration and transfers; community organizations and legal service providers that could receive grants from the new fund.
Why It Matters
The bill uses state tax policy to target firms tied to federal immigration enforcement and channels resulting revenue to legal services for immigrants—an uncommon pairing of tax denial and social service funding. That design creates administrative, budgetary, and legal questions for tax administrators, DHS contractors, and organizations that would apply for grants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1675 defines a “contracting corporation” to include any taxpayer that provides goods or services to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security either directly or through subcontracts, and explicitly lists United States Customs and Border Protection, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Management Directorate as covered components. It also defines “tax expenditure” broadly to include credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, or other tax benefits under Part 11 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
The operative prohibition is straightforward on its face: for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2032, a contracting corporation shall not be eligible to claim any tax expenditure under the Corporation Tax provisions for corporations that are subject to reporting under Government Code Section 13305. That nexus to Section 13305 is a gating mechanism in the statute: it limits the denial to corporations that fall within the reporting regime identified there, which will matter for determining which contractors are actually affected.To convert the statutory change into program dollars, the bill directs the Franchise Tax Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, to estimate the additional revenue that results from the denial and to notify the Controller.
The Controller must transfer an amount equal to that estimate from the General Fund into a newly created California Immigrant Resilience Fund. Money in that fund becomes available, only upon appropriation by the Legislature, to make grants, enter contracts, and fund state operations to provide immigration-related services, including removal defense, under the authority enumerated in existing Welfare & Institutions Code Chapter 5.6.The chapter includes a hard sunset: it remains operative only until December 1, 2032, when it is repealed.
Separately, the bill’s intent section lists additional prohibitions on pretax treatment of employer pension and health-plan contributions and creates a political override mechanism: if both the Governor and the Attorney General determine by December 1 before a tax year that DHS activities are lawful and not instigating civil unrest, the act can be rendered inoperative for that tax year. That intent language and the operative text create potential ambiguity about which prohibitions are legally enforceable and which are signaling legislative intent.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For taxable years beginning Jan 1, 2027 and before Jan 1, 2032, the bill denies any tax expenditure (credit, deduction, exclusion, exemption, or other tax benefit) to a contracting corporation as defined in the chapter.
A “contracting corporation” covers taxpayers that contract with DHS either directly or through subcontracts and specifically names U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Management Directorate.
The Franchise Tax Board must estimate the additional revenue attributable to the denial (first estimate due June 1, 2027 covering the 2026 taxable year, then annually thereafter) and the Controller must transfer that estimated amount from the General Fund to the California Immigrant Resilience Fund.
Moneys in the California Immigrant Resilience Fund are available only upon appropriation and may be used, under Welfare & Institutions Code Chapter 5.6 authority, for immigration-related services including removal defense.
The chapter automatically repeals on December 1, 2032, and an intent clause allows the Governor and Attorney General—by December 1 before a tax year—to declare the act inoperative for that tax year if they jointly find DHS activity lawful and not instigating civil unrest.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — No Tax Breaks for ICE Contractors Act of 2026
This section simply names the chapter. Practically, the short title signals the statutory purpose and frames how agencies, litigants, and stakeholders will refer to the provisions, which matters for administrative guidance and any subsequent regulatory or judicial discussion.
Definitions: contracting corporation, DHS components, tax expenditure
This section sets the scope. By including direct contracts and subcontracts, the bill reaches downstream providers, not only prime contractors. Listing CBP, ICE, and the Management Directorate narrows the universe of covered DHS activity to specific operational and support components. Defining “tax expenditure” broadly makes clear the denial applies across credits, deductions, exclusions, and similar benefits under the Corporation Tax law—not a single targeted credit—so affected taxpayers must review the full menu of corporate tax preferences when assessing liability.
Denial of tax expenditures for contracting corporations
This is the operative prohibition: for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027 and before January 1, 2032, a contracting corporation shall not be eligible to claim any tax expenditure for corporations subject to reporting pursuant to Government Code Section 13305. Tying the denial to corporations subject to Section 13305 creates an eligibility gate that will require factual determinations about which entities fall under that reporting obligation; that determination will be central to enforcement and compliance because it effectively narrows who is captured.
Revenue estimates, fund creation, and transfers
FTB must estimate additional revenue: first estimate due June 1, 2027 (covering the prior taxable year), then annually on June 1 thereafter for the preceding year. Upon notification, the Controller transfers an amount equal to the estimate from the General Fund into the newly created California Immigrant Resilience Fund. Funds are to be used—upon legislative appropriation—for grants, contracts, and state operations under the Welfare & Institutions Code authority to provide immigration-related services including removal defense. Practically, transfers reduce available General Fund cash and create a contingent spending pool that still requires appropriation, producing two separate fiscal steps (transfer, then appropriation) before money reaches service providers.
Sunset and repeal
The chapter is operative only until December 1, 2032, at which point it is repealed. The sunset creates a finite policy window and a predictable fiscal cliff: affected taxpayers and service providers can plan around a limited-term change, but the approaching repeal also creates timing and transitional issues for multiyear contracts and program continuity.
Additional prohibitions and conditional inoperability (intent language)
The bill’s intent language lists further prohibitions—specifically barring pretax treatment for employer pension contributions (Revenue & Taxation Code §17501) and employer contributions to health plans (§17131)—and states the act can be made inoperative for a single tax year if the Governor and Attorney General jointly determine DHS activity is lawful and not instigating civil unrest, with that determination required by December 1 prior to the tax year. Because this material appears in an intent section rather than the operative chapter, it creates potential ambiguity over enforceability and may force agencies and taxpayers to seek clarifying guidance about whether and how those intent provisions will be applied.
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
- Immigrants facing removal proceedings: the bill directs estimated revenue into a fund intended to finance removal-defense legal services, potentially increasing access to counsel for low‑income noncitizens.
- Nonprofit legal-service providers and community-based organizations qualified under Welfare & Institutions Code Chapter 5.6: those organizations would be eligible to receive grants or contracts from the California Immigrant Resilience Fund once the Legislature appropriates the transferred monies.
- Advocacy groups and local governments that support expanded immigration legal services: the statute creates a dedicated funding stream (subject to appropriation) that aligns state fiscal policy with immigrant‑defense objectives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Corporations that contract (directly or via subcontract) with DHS components listed in the statute: they lose eligibility for all tax expenditures during the covered tax years, which can materially increase taxable income and tax liabilities.
- State General Fund: the Controller must transfer an amount equal to FTB’s estimate from the General Fund to the Immigrant Resilience Fund, reducing available General Fund resources until and unless the Legislature offsets the reduction.
- Franchise Tax Board and Department of Finance: these agencies take on estimation, reporting, and enforcement duties, which will require analytic work and potentially new administrative procedures to determine who qualifies as a contracting corporation and to calculate forfeited tax expenditures.
- DHS contractors and subcontractors doing business in or through California: contracting practices, bid pricing, and contract allocation strategies may change as firms weigh higher California tax liabilities; some contractors could adjust corporate structure or shift performance to avoid California tax exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between using state tax policy to withhold fiscal benefits from firms that support federal immigration enforcement and the practical, legal, and fiscal consequences of doing so: denying tax expenditures advances a state policy objective and creates a funding source for immigrant legal defense, but it also generates administrative complexity, potential constitutional exposure, budgetary strain on the General Fund, and uncertainty for contractors and service providers.
The bill bundles tax-denial with a targeted funding mechanism, but that pairing raises several implementation and legal questions. First, the substantive reach turns on who is a “contracting corporation” and which entities are “subject to reporting pursuant to Section 13305.” Those factual gates will require administrative rules or binding guidance; absent clarity, taxpayers will face uncertainty about whether the denial applies to primes, first-tier subcontractors, subsidiaries, or pass-through entities.
Second, the FTB’s estimation mandate imposes a methodological burden: estimating “additional revenue” from denied tax expenditures involves choices about timing, recognition, and which tax preferences are in scope, and those methodological choices affect the General Fund transfer amount and program funding.
There are also constitutional and practical risk vectors. The statute targets entities tied to a federal department, which could prompt constitutional challenges (preemption, federal‑contracting interference, or equal protection/ due‑process claims).
The requirement that the Controller transfer estimated sums from the General Fund creates a fiscal ripple—cash moves before legislative appropriation of the fund—and could complicate mid‑year budget management. Finally, the intent clause’s listing of additional exclusions (pension and health pretax treatment) and the Governor/Attorney General inoperative trigger live in a gray zone: because part of that language is framed as legislative intent rather than operative text, it may sow compliance uncertainty and litigation over which prohibitions are enforceable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.