Fire service tax break for firefighters

Summary#

H.R. 10818, the Fire Service Workforce Stability Act of 2026, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Its stated goal is to exclude certain income of firefighters and emergency medical services personnel from gross income; the bill’s eligibility rules are narrower than that title may suggest.

  • A qualifying full-time employee in fire protection activities would be able to exclude the first $100,000 of their ordinary income for a tax year, if they had worked full-time in those activities for at least five years before that year.
  • A qualifying volunteer first responder could also exclude the first $100,000 of ordinary income. They would have to meet five-year service and activity requirements, be certified in fire protection activities, and submit a verification letter to the Treasury Secretary during the tax year.
  • The volunteer’s letter must come from the head of the eligible employer and include the volunteer’s start date, attest to the service and activity requirements, and include the certification.
  • The exclusion would apply to tax years beginning after the bill becomes law. The bill is not law; it has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

What it means for you#

  • Qualifying paid fire-protection employees: If you meet the five-year work requirement and work full-time in fire protection activities during the tax year, the bill would exclude the first $100,000 of your ordinary income from gross income. The bill’s text does not expressly limit that income to pay from fire-protection work.
  • Qualifying volunteer first responders: You would need five continuous years with the eligible employer. For each year, you must have met the employer’s minimum active-membership requirements or, if it set none, volunteered at least 200 hours. You must also be certified in fire protection activities and submit the required letter.
  • Other emergency medical services personnel: The title refers to EMS personnel, but the paid-worker eligibility rule refers to employees in “fire protection activities.” The bill text alone does not establish which EMS workers qualify.
  • Other taxpayers: The bill does not directly change your tax rules unless you meet its eligibility requirements.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • The bill would reduce taxable gross income for people who qualify, but it does not estimate the resulting loss of federal tax revenue or each person’s tax savings.
  • The bill requires qualifying volunteers to submit a verification letter to the Treasury Secretary. It does not specify staffing or other administrative costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “ordinary income” or say whether the $100,000 exclusion applies to income from any source or only income related to fire or emergency services.
  • The bill uses terms from other parts of federal law, including “fire protection activities,” “eligible employer,” and “qualified services.” The parent laws were not supplied, so their meanings and how they interact with current law could not be verified here.
  • It is unclear which EMS workers qualify under the fire-protection-activity rules.
  • The bill does not set out how the Treasury Secretary would handle letters, what proof would be accepted beyond the listed documents, or how eligibility would be enforced.
  • The bill gives no enactment date; the start date depends on when it becomes law.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to provide a tax benefit to experienced full-time fire-protection employees and long-serving volunteers.
  • A possible argument for the five-year rules is that they focus the exclusion on people with sustained service rather than short-term participation.
  • The volunteer letter and certification requirements could provide a way to verify service and qualifications.

Case against#

  • The bill does not clearly tie the income exclusion to earnings from fire or emergency services. As written, that could leave uncertainty about which income is excluded.
  • The bill’s title includes EMS personnel, but the eligibility text does not clearly cover all EMS workers.
  • The bill provides no estimate of federal revenue loss or administrative costs, and does not explain how eligibility will be checked.
  • The volunteer requirements depend in part on each eligible employer’s membership rules. Where an employer sets no minimum, the bill uses a 200-hour threshold; it does not explain how differing employer rules would be handled.