AB 918 creates a temporary state income tax exclusion for certain wages paid to local first responders when they provide mutual aid in areas subject to a 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exclusion applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030, and the statute is repealed by December 1, 2030.
Practically, the bill narrows eligibility to employees of local agencies, ties the exclusion to mutual aid under Government Code section 8631, and gives the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) broad authority to issue guidance, verification rules, and regulations (with an express exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act for FTB guidance). The Legislature also files a finding claiming there is no available data to collect under the statutory reporting requirement for new tax expenditures, a point with fiscal‑transparency implications.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 918 excludes from California gross income ‘‘qualified wages’’ paid to local‑agency first responders for work performed under mutual aid in areas subject to a declared state or local emergency for tax years 2025–2029. It authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to set verification, documentation, and reporting rules and exempts FTB guidance from the APA.
Who It Affects
Directly affects local‑agency first responders (as defined in Government Code §8562(a)) and their employers — local public agencies responsible for payroll and withholding — plus the Franchise Tax Board, which must operationalize the exclusion. It does not cover state, federal, private, or volunteer responders.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a targeted, time‑limited tax expenditure intended to increase the after‑tax pay of deployed local first responders, which could affect disaster response incentives and payroll administration. It also raises immediate implementation and measurement questions because the Legislature asserts no available data will be collected about the program’s effects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 918 carves a temporary exclusion out of California’s personal income tax for wages paid to certain first responders when they work as part of an organized mutual‑aid response in an area under a declared state or local emergency. The exclusion applies only while the worker is performing mutual‑aid duties outside the geographic area the employer normally serves; it does not apply to work done inside the responder’s usual jurisdiction or for districts where they routinely work.
The statute borrows the mutual‑aid and emergency definitions from the Government Code, so qualifying deployments must fit the mutual‑aid framework in section 8631 and the emergency definitions in section 8558. ‘‘Qualified taxpayer’’ points back to the Government Code definition of first responder but is limited to employees of local public agencies; the bill therefore excludes state, federal, private, and volunteer responders from the benefit.Operationally, the Franchise Tax Board gets a central role: it may issue guidance, verification procedures, documentation requirements, and regulations to implement the exclusion. The bill explicitly exempts FTB guidance from the Administrative Procedure Act, which speeds issuance but reduces formal rulemaking oversight.
The statutory language sunsets the exclusion for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2030 and contains an automatic repeal of the section in December 2030, making this an explicitly temporary tax expenditure.Finally, the Legislature includes a short compliance statement under the Revenue and Taxation Code: it identifies the policy goal (recognition of extraordinary circumstances faced by first responders) and declares that ‘‘there is no available data to collect or report’’ under the reporting requirements that normally accompany new tax expenditures. That legislative finding narrows the data obligations but also limits the empirical record available to evaluate the exclusion’s effectiveness.
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; the statute is set to be repealed December 1, 2030.
"Qualified wages" are limited to wages for work performed in an area with a declared state or local emergency and pursuant to mutual aid under Government Code §8631; wages for work inside the employer’s normal jurisdiction or for the responder’s usual district are excluded from the benefit.
"Qualified taxpayer" is defined by reference to Government Code §8562(a) but restricted to employees of local public agencies — volunteers, contractors, state and federal employees are not covered.
The Franchise Tax Board may prescribe verification procedures, documentation and reporting requirements, and regulations, and the bill exempts FTB guidance from the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code §11340).
Section 2 contains a legislative finding that the exclusion’s goal is emergency recognition and asserts there is "no available data to collect or report" under the standard new‑tax‑expenditure reporting requirements, curtailing statutory data collection.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Income exclusion for qualified mutual‑aid wages
This subsection establishes the core rule: gross income does not include qualified wages for taxable years beginning between Jan 1, 2025 and Jan 1, 2030. For practitioners, this creates a discrete, time‑bounded tax expenditure that must be reflected in payroll withholding and individual return preparation for the affected years.
Emergency and mutual‑aid definitions (ties to Government Code)
AB 918 imports the Government Code definitions of "state of emergency" and "local emergency" (Gov. Code §8558) and defines "provision of mutual aid" by reference to Gov. Code §8631. That linkage means whether wages qualify depends on whether the deployment fits existing mutual‑aid and emergency frameworks rather than novel tax‑code definitions — a practical choice that keeps substantive thresholds in one place but can create cross‑agency interpretive issues when payroll and deployment records must be reconciled.
Scope of "qualified wages": outside‑jurisdiction restriction
The statute expressly limits qualified wages to work performed outside the employer’s normal jurisdiction and excludes wages for responses inside the employer’s regular service area or routine district work. This geographic carve‑out narrows the exclusion and requires employers to distinguish mutual‑aid deployments from ordinary duty shifts — a distinction that will drive documentation and potential disputes during audits.
Who counts as a "qualified taxpayer"
Rather than creating a new definition, the bill points to the Government Code definition of "first responder" (Gov. Code §8562(a)) but confines eligibility to employees of local agencies. The practical effect is to exclude state and federal employees, private contractors, and volunteers from the exclusion, narrowing the beneficiary pool and raising equity questions about cross‑jurisdictional deployments.
FTB authority, APA exemption, sunset, and legislative findings
FTB gets broad implementation authority — it can issue guidance, require verification and documentation, and adopt regulations; the bill exempts FTB guidance from the APA to enable faster, less formal guidance. The subsection (d) sunset/repeal and Section 2’s finding (including the statement that no data is available to collect) affect both the duration and the post‑enactment oversight: the exclusion is temporary and the Legislature has signaled it does not plan to collect performance data through the statutory mechanism.
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
- Local‑agency first responders deployed under mutual aid — they receive an exclusion from California gross income for qualifying mutual‑aid wages, reducing state income tax on those earnings for the covered tax years.
- Local public safety agencies — indirectly benefit because the exclusion raises deployed employees’ after‑tax pay, which can ease recruitment and retention pressures for mutual‑aid assignments and reduce net labor costs borne by personnel.
- Mutual‑aid recipient jurisdictions and regional response systems — by making mutual‑aid deployments more financially favorable for sending personnel, the exclusion may improve willingness to deploy and thus strengthen operational mutual‑aid networks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local agency payroll and HR departments — they must identify qualifying deployments, track which wages fall outside normal jurisdictional service, apply the exclusion correctly on payroll and year‑end reporting, and maintain documentation in case of FTB verification or audit.
- Franchise Tax Board — tasked with creating verification procedures, guidance, and possible regulations to operationalize the exclusion, increasing administrative workload and requiring new audit and compliance resources despite an APA exemption for guidance.
- California General Fund/taxpayers — the exclusion is a tax expenditure that reduces state income tax revenue for the covered years; absent offsetting revenue or spending cuts, this creates a fiscal cost to the state.
- Non‑covered responders (state, federal, private contractors, volunteers) — these groups receive no benefit, which can create perceived inequities for personnel who respond side‑by‑side with local agency employees but are excluded from the tax relief.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a narrow, time‑limited targeted benefit for on‑the‑ground first responders against administrative complexity and weaker fiscal transparency: lawmakers favor quick, focused tax relief for deployed local personnel, while administrators and auditors face hard recordkeeping, eligibility and measurement questions that a short, data‑lite program may not resolve cleanly.
AB 918 is straightforward in intent but leaves several implementation questions that matter for compliance and fiscal oversight. First, the statute requires employers and the Franchise Tax Board to draw sharp lines around what counts as "outside" a responder’s normal jurisdiction or "regular" district service.
Payroll systems and deployment records generally are not organized to make that distinction automatically, so employers will need clear FTB guidance and likely new recordkeeping protocols; absent such guidance, disputes and inconsistent application are likely.
Second, the bill limits statutory data collection by asserting there is "no available data to collect or report" under the usual new‑tax‑expenditure requirements. That reduces administrative obligations but also removes a statutory pathway for measuring whether the exclusion met its stated goal.
From a fiscal‑policy perspective, that creates a transparency trade‑off: faster, cheaper enactment versus weaker ability to assess whether the expenditure produced desired operational outcomes (for example, increased mutual‑aid participation).
Finally, the scope questions — whether overtime, special duty pay, stipends, per diems, or employer reimbursements are "qualified wages" — are unresolved in the text. FTB rulemaking authority covers these ambiguities, but the APA exemption for guidance narrows procedural checks and public input.
The combination of narrow eligibility, temporary status, and limited data collection increases the risk that the program’s costs and benefits will be poorly documented and contested in audits or intergovernmental disputes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.