AB 564 temporarily reduces the state cannabis excise burden and tasks regulators with analyzing the tax’s market effects. The bill keeps the excise framework in place but pauses the higher rate adopted in 2025 and requires agencies to report on revenue impacts and market competitiveness before any future permanent rate increases.
For professionals tracking compliance, budgeting, or market dynamics, AB 564 matters because it changes near-term tax liabilities for licensed sellers, creates new reporting duties for the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), and establishes a recurring, data-driven mechanism to reset the excise rate beginning in the 2028–29 fiscal year.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill sets the cannabis excise tax at 19% only through September 30, 2025, drops it to 15% from October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, and then requires biennial recalculation beginning for the 2028–29 fiscal year to generate revenue equivalent to the pre‑2022 cultivation tax, capped at 19% and rounded to the nearest 0.25 percentage point. It also mandates an interagency report on market effects and an annual CDTFA revenue-impact report during the temporary reduction period.
Who It Affects
Directly affects licensed cannabis retailers (collection and remittance), indirectly affects cultivators and distributors because of the revenue-equivalence calculation, and imposes analytic and data‑sharing duties on the DCC, CDTFA, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. State budget offices, local revenue planners, and compliance vendors will also need to adjust forecasts and systems.
Why It Matters
The measure provides immediate cost relief to the legal market while creating a structured, data-driven path for rate adjustments tied to what the cultivation tax would have produced. That dual approach alters short‑term price and margin dynamics and places new statistical and operational burdens on state agencies and regulated businesses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 564 rewrites how California sets and reviews its state cannabis excise tax. It temporarily reverses the sharp rate increase implemented for the 2025–26 fiscal year by restoring a lower excise rate for a defined multi‑year window, and then returns the state to a schedule that recalculates the rate every two years to approximate the revenue the old cultivation tax would have produced.
The recalculation is an administrative exercise: CDTFA, consulting with the Department of Finance, must estimate the ‘‘equivalent’’ cultivation‑tax revenue using available data — including the state’s track‑and‑trace system — and translate that amount into an added percentage of retail gross receipts, subject to a 19% cap and rounding rules.
Operationally, the bill leaves intact core collection mechanics: retailers must collect and remit the excise, deliver a receipt that separately states the tax, and withhold sales if the tax hasn’t been paid. It preserves existing limited exemptions—medicinal donations and designated trade samples are treated according to current law—and treats persons who sell trade samples as liable retailers for excise purposes.AB 564 also layers in monitoring and reporting requirements.
CDTFA must report to the Legislature by June 1, 2027 and annually thereafter on estimated revenue gains or losses tied to the temporary reduction. Separately, the Department of Cannabis Control, working with CDTFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, must deliver a comprehensive report by October 1, 2027 analyzing the tax’s present and likely future effects on the regulated market, competitiveness with the illicit market, and the law’s ability to fund environmental restoration, youth programs, community investment, and law enforcement as the original initiative intended.
Several reporting provisions are explicitly temporary and repeal on January 1, 2029.Because the bill is enacted as a tax levy, its rate and reporting changes take effect immediately on enactment for the tax periods set out in the statute. That immediacy means businesses, compliance vendors, and tax administrators must implement rate changes, update point‑of‑sale and accounting systems, and coordinate data exchanges within compressed operational timelines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets the excise tax at 15% from October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028 (the rate remains 19% only through September 30, 2025).
Beginning in the 2028–29 fiscal year and every two years thereafter, CDTFA (with Department of Finance) must calculate an added percentage that would generate revenue equivalent to the pre‑2022 weight‑based cultivation tax; any adjusted excise rate is capped at 19% and rounded to the nearest 0.25%.
The Department of Cannabis Control must submit a market impact report by October 1, 2027, prepared in consultation with CDTFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, assessing competitiveness with the illicit market and recommending statutory options; CDTFA is required to share necessary data.
CDTFA must also report to the Legislature on or before June 1, 2027 and annually thereafter estimating the gain or loss in excise revenue caused by the temporary rate reduction; those reporting provisions expire January 1, 2029.
Retailers remain responsible for collecting and remitting the excise tax and must provide a separate statement of the excise on purchaser receipts; existing exemptions for medicinal donations and trade‑sample designations remain in place and sellers of trade samples are treated as retailers for excise liability.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short‑term rate schedule and administrative recalculation
This amendment contains the core rate mechanics. It preserves the 19% excise only through September 30, 2025, sets a 15% rate from October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, and reestablishes a biennial administrative adjustment process starting for the 2028–29 fiscal year. The adjustment requires CDTFA, consulting with the Department of Finance, to estimate the revenue equivalence to the weight‑based cultivation tax as it existed on June 29, 2022, convert that dollar amount into a percentage of retail gross receipts, and set the excise accordingly — but never above 19% and rounded to the nearest quarter‑percent. Practically, this compels CDTFA to build and publish a repeatable methodology and timeline for translating projected cultivation‑tax dollars into an excise percentage, with fixed May 1 and July 1 procedural dates for calculation and implementation.
Collection, invoicing, and limited exemptions
Subsections reiterate who bears direct compliance obligations: retailers collect and remit the tax, must show the excise separately on invoices, and remain the compliance front line for enforcement. The text preserves long‑standing exemptions: medicinal cannabis donated for no consideration and products designated as trade samples remain outside the excise, though sellers of trade samples are treated as retailers for liability when they make such transfers. For operators and POS vendors, the operative consequence is unchanged: system updates and tax remittance workflows must reflect both the temporary rate change and any future adjusted rate.
Statutory findings and CDTFA reporting on revenue impact
This section supplies the statutory hook required by Section 41 for new tax expenditures: it states the Legislature’s goal (immediate industry relief) and specifies performance indicators (measuring gain or loss in excise revenue). It mandates CDTFA reports to the Legislature on estimated revenue effects beginning June 1, 2027 and annually thereafter and explicitly sunsets these reporting obligations on January 1, 2029. For fiscal offices and budget analysts, this creates a scheduled stream of administration‑produced estimates intended to inform whether the temporary reduction met its stated objective.
DCC market assessment and recommendations
Section 3 requires the Department of Cannabis Control, in consultation with CDTFA and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, to deliver a substantive report by October 1, 2027. The report must analyze how the Cannabis Tax Law affects the regulated market’s competitiveness with the illicit market, evaluate the Law’s capacity to fund the uses specified in the original initiative (environmental restoration, youth programs, community investments, law enforcement), and recommend statutory options considering revenue effects, administrative feasibility, and market impacts. The section obliges CDTFA to share data with DCC as needed and likewise sunsets on January 1, 2029. This creates a formal evidence base meant to feed any future legislative action on tax structure.
Immediate effect as a tax levy
The act declares itself a tax levy under Article IV of the California Constitution, triggering immediate effect upon enactment. The immediate‑effect clause shortens the operational lead time for implementing rate changes and obliges state agencies and businesses to treat the new rates as effective for the statutory periods without waiting for standard effective‑date timing used for non‑levy legislation.
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
- Licensed cannabis retailers and their customers — Retailers receive immediate margin relief from the lower 15% excise and can choose whether to pass savings through to consumers, improving short‑term competitiveness and potentially raising legal‑market transaction volumes.
- Smaller and mid‑size producers and distributors — By lowering downstream excise pressure temporarily, AB 564 reduces a component of tax burden that can compress producer margins and encourage under‑the‑table sales; smaller licensees most exposed to price pressure may gain breathing room.
- Compliance and point‑of‑sale vendors — The law creates demand for software updates and consulting to implement rate changes, generating short‑term business opportunities for compliance vendors and accountants.
- Policy analysts and legislators — The mandated DCC/CDTFA/LAO report builds a data set and analysis to support evidence‑based reform; stakeholders seeking structural change will get a formal set of options and revenue estimates.
Who Bears the Cost
- State programs originally funded by cannabis taxes — Funds earmarked by AUMA for environmental restoration, youth prevention/treatment, community investment, and public safety will see near‑term revenue reductions, complicating budgeting for those purposes.
- CDTFA and DCC — Both agencies absorb analytic and operational workload: CDTFA must develop projection methodology, perform biennial recalculations, and deliver recurring revenue reports; DCC must produce the market assessment. The statute imposes these tasks without a dedicated funding stream in the text.
- Retailers and compliance teams — Although they benefit from a lower rate, retailers incur one‑time and recurring administrative costs to update POS systems, invoices, accounting, and training to handle rate changes, rounding rules, and future recalculations.
- Local revenue planners and budget officers — Municipal and county officials who model cannabis revenue will face added volatility and forecasting complexity while the state transitions through temporary and then biennial rates.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 564 creates is a trade‑off between immediate tax relief to strengthen the legal cannabis market and the original initiative’s promise to fund environmental restoration, youth programs, community investments, and law enforcement: lowering the excise helps regulated actors now but reduces funds earmarked for public purposes and may weaken the fiscal case for enforcing and expanding the regulated market. The statute attempts a middle course — temporary reduction plus a data‑driven mechanism to restore lost revenue — but that mechanism requires difficult estimates, creates discretion, and is constrained by a statutory cap, so it may not fully reconcile the competing goals.
The bill resolves an immediate political and market pressure — lowering the excise for several years — but leaves significant implementation questions that could affect revenue predictability and enforcement. First, the recalculation requires CDTFA to estimate what a discontinued weight‑based cultivation tax ‘‘would have’’ generated; that counterfactual hinges on projecting plant weights, yields, diversion rates, and the relationship between cultivation outputs and retail gross receipts.
Those projections depend on data that can lag, be incomplete, or be skewed by enterprise-level reporting differences. Using track‑and‑trace data as an input helps, but the statute gives agencies no detailed methodological rule, which creates discretion that can produce materially different excise outcomes from one biennial cycle to the next.
Second, the statutory cap (19%) and rounding to the nearest quarter‑percent introduce non‑linearities. If the cultivation‑equivalent percentage would exceed 19%, the cap mutes revenue restoration and could leave a structural shortfall relative to AUMA’s original funding intents.
Conversely, the rounding rule can create step changes that matter for marginal retail pricing and compliance testing. Third, the reporting deadlines and the October 1, 2027 DCC report are useful but temporary: those reporting mandates repeal on January 1, 2029, meaning longer‑term program evaluation and continuous monitoring will require new statutory authority or appropriation.
Finally, the bill strikes a balance between short‑term market support and long‑term fiscal commitments; if lowered excise rates fail to grow legal‑market share sufficiently, the state may lose permanent revenue while illicit supply persists, undermining the goal the bill aims to advance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.