SB 268 would add parallel exclusions to California’s Personal Income Tax Law and Corporation Tax Law to exclude from gross income amounts paid by a defined “settlement entity” to replace property located in a jurisdiction where a state or local emergency was proclaimed. The exclusion applies only for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030, and the new code sections automatically repeal on December 1, 2030.
The bill narrows the exclusion to payments made by settlement entities approved by a class action settlement administrator and requires those entities (or the taxpayer) to provide documentation to the Franchise Tax Board on request. The measure is presented as short‑term disaster relief but creates administrative and definitional questions for FTB, settlement administrators, plaintiffs, and insurers, and it has an unspecified fiscal impact on state revenues.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 268 excludes from California gross income settlement payments that replace property damaged or destroyed in areas covered by a state or local emergency, but only if the payment comes from a settlement entity approved by a class action settlement administrator. The exclusion is limited to tax years starting on or after Jan 1, 2025 and before Jan 1, 2030 and the statutory provisions repeal Dec 1, 2030.
Who It Affects
The rule targets individuals and entities that own real property, reside, or operate a business in declared disaster areas and who receive class‑action settlement payments for property replacement. It also imposes documentation and compliance duties on settlement entities, class action settlement administrators, and the Franchise Tax Board.
Why It Matters
By carving out a state tax exclusion tied to class action settlements, the bill could change post‑disaster recovery economics for plaintiffs and defendants, alter settlement design, and create new compliance workflows at FTB. The temporary nature and limited definition of eligible payments leave open whether common disaster proceeds (for example, insurance payouts) will be treated the same way.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 268 creates two matching statutory exclusions — one added to the Personal Income Tax Law and one to the Corporation Tax Law — that remove certain settlement payments from California gross income for a five‑year window. The exclusion applies only when the payment is made by a “settlement entity” that was approved by a class action settlement administrator and only when the payment is to replace property located in a city or county in California that was damaged or destroyed in a disaster or accidental/human‑caused event for which a state or local emergency was proclaimed.
The bill defines a “qualified taxpayer” in three categories: the owner of real property in the damaged area who paid or incurred expenses and received settlement amounts; a resident of the damaged area with similar payments and expenses; and a taxpayer with a place of business in the damaged area who likewise paid or incurred expenses and received settlement amounts. The statutory language conditions the exclusion on the taxpayer having paid or incurred expenses arising out of the disaster or event, which connects the tax treatment to actual loss‑replacement activity rather than to unrelated award components.SB 268 also builds in a document production rule: the settlement entity must provide documentation of settlement payments in the form and manner requested by the Franchise Tax Board, and either the settlement entity or the qualified taxpayer must supply that documentation to the Board on request.
The bill includes an explicit finding required under California law that describes the exclusion’s purpose (relief for those harmed by disasters) and, curiously, states there is no available data to collect or report about the exclusion. The sections are time‑limited and repeal at the end of 2030, and the act declares itself a tax levy so it takes immediate effect under the California Constitution.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The exclusion applies only to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2030; the statutory provisions repeal on December 1, 2030.
A “settlement entity” must be an entity approved by a class action settlement administrator — the exclusion is expressly tied to class‑action style settlements, not to generic insurance or vendor payments.
A “qualified taxpayer” must own property in, reside in, or have a place of business in the declared emergency area and must have paid or incurred expenses related to the disaster and received settlement amounts tied to those expenses.
The bill requires the settlement entity (or the qualified taxpayer) to provide settlement documentation to the Franchise Tax Board upon request, but it does not specify audit standards, forms, or thresholds.
SB 268 adds matching exclusions to both the Personal Income Tax Law (Section 17139.4) and the Corporation Tax Law (Section 24309.8) — treating individuals and corporations the same for these settlement payments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Excludes class‑action settlement payments for property replacement from personal gross income
This section inserts a narrow gross‑income exclusion into the Personal Income Tax Law. It limits eligibility to payments made by a settlement entity (approved by a class action settlement administrator) to taxpayers who owned, lived in, or operated a business in an area subject to a declared state or local emergency and who paid or incurred expenses tied to the disaster. The practical effect is to prevent these settlement proceeds from increasing California taxable income for individual filers — but only for the limited period covered by the statute.
Parallel exclusion for corporations and other entities subject to franchise/corporate tax
This section mirrors the PIT exclusion for entities subject to the Corporation Tax Law, so businesses that receive qualifying settlement payments for property replacement will not include those specific settlement proceeds in corporate gross income during the covered tax years. Mirroring reduces distortion between entity types but raises identical questions about qualifying payments, documentation, and interaction with other non‑settlement disaster payments.
Stated policy purpose and an unusual claim about data availability
To satisfy California’s rule for creating a new tax expenditure, the bill sets out that the exclusion’s purpose is disaster relief for those who suffered loss or incurred expenses. It also declares there is no available data to collect or report regarding the exclusion. That statement conflicts with the usual transparency requirements (goals, objectives, performance indicators) and creates an immediate implementation question: if no data exist, how will the Franchise Tax Board measure fiscal effect or compliance?
Immediate effect as a tax levy and sunset
The bill declares itself a tax levy and takes immediate effect under Article IV of the state Constitution. The exclusion’s operative window is limited to tax years starting in 2025 through 2029 and the statutory sections are set to repeal December 1, 2030. The short timeframe creates a temporary relief program rather than a permanent change to the tax base.
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
- Homeowners in declared emergency areas who receive class‑action settlement payments — they avoid California income tax on settlement proceeds earmarked to replace damaged or destroyed property, increasing their net recovery.
- Renters and residents in declared emergency zones who participate in class action settlements — the exclusion applies to qualifying settlement payments to residents who paid or incurred disaster‑related expenses.
- Small businesses with a place of business in affected areas — businesses that receive qualifying class‑action settlement payments for property replacement will not count those payments in gross income, improving post‑disaster cash flow.
- Class action plaintiffs and their counsel — tying the exclusion to class‑action settlement structures creates an incentive to pursue and structure recovery through approved settlement entities.
- Class action settlement administrators and designated settlement entities — the statute elevates their role in confirming eligibility and supplying documentation, increasing their operational importance (and potential fees or liability).
Who Bears the Cost
- Franchise Tax Board — charged with verifying exclusions, crafting documentation standards, and handling audits without specified forms or data fields; this imposes administrative and potentially litigation burdens.
- Settlement entities and class action administrators — must maintain records, respond to FTB requests, and potentially redesign settlement notices and distribution mechanics to meet tax documentation requirements.
- State Treasury / General Fund — the exclusion reduces taxable base for both individual and corporate filers over multiple years, creating an unquantified revenue loss during the effective window.
- Insurers and other non‑class settlement payers — if payments fall outside the defined “settlement entity” framework, parties and insurers may face disputes over whether a payout should have been structured as a class settlement to secure the tax exclusion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances an urgent policy goal — reducing post‑disaster tax burdens for people and businesses — against the risk of creating a narrowly framed tax carve‑out that favors class‑action recovery channels, complicates administration, and produces unmeasured fiscal costs; the tradeoff is between fast, targeted relief and coherent, administrable, and equitable tax policy.
SB 268 targets a narrow class of payments — those made by settlement entities approved by class action settlement administrators — but it does not address common disaster recovery flows such as private insurance claim payments, FEMA assistance, or direct vendor reimbursements. That limitation could create arbitrary tax outcomes where two similarly situated victims receive different tax treatment depending on whether recovery came through a class settlement or other mechanisms.
The statute conditions eligibility on the taxpayer having “paid or incurred expenses,” but it leaves open how the Franchise Tax Board should verify that connection (for example, netting deductible losses, repairing vs replacing, or awards that include both compensatory and non‑compensatory elements).
The documentation rule places a heavy burden on settlement entities and FTB without providing form standards, timelines, or thresholds for materiality; those implementation choices will determine how many taxpayers can practically claim the exclusion and how many claims trigger audits. The legislative finding that “there is no available data to collect or report” undercuts the statutory requirement that new tax expenditures include performance indicators; it also means the state will likely lack benchmarks to assess revenue loss or program effectiveness.
Finally, the temporary, five‑year window creates a cliff: plaintiffs and defendants may race to structure settlements to land within the effective period, and the sunset risks leaving recipients exposed to tax liability or retroactive disputes if dates or documentation cannot be reconciled.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.