5 ms·
While I don't condone the abusive investigation, I will say that plenty of people do pretend to move in order to avoid income tax liability. I don't think the i
by berberous 9y ago
While I don't condone the abusive investigation, I will say that plenty of people do pretend to move in order to avoid income tax liability. I don't think the items you listed, like renting an apartment or obtaining a driver's license, are dispositive. Presumably (but maybe not?), the record also had evidence suggesting he still maintained California residence.
- rayiner 9y agoThe legal test for changing residency imposes a very low threshold: you move to a new state with intent to remain there.
- r00fus 9y agoDoes that include not having a residence in your previous state? Multiple residency is a thing. As far as CA is concerned if you live there for some of the year, you are taxed.
- koolba 9y agoNYC doesn't even care if you live there. If you visit NYC for work more than a min amount (say for meetings or to play in a professional sports game), you're on the hook for taxes.
- brightball 9y agoWTH?!
- koolba 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax
- harryh 9y agoThat might be true for earned income but isn't true for things like capital gains.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 9y agoNo, you don't need to "unestablish" residence in your prior state. If I move from Virginia to Maryland on January 1, and I really intend to stay in Maryland, I'm a Maryland resident, and only a Maryland resident, starting January 1. Multiple residency is a thing, but it has to be based on actual presence in the other state. California isn't asserting that after moving to Nevada, Hyatt then spent more than 183 days in California over the next year.
- berberous 9y agoYes, and my point is that a very wealthy person could easily rent an apartment in Nevada, obtain a Nevada driver’s license, open a Nevada bank account, register to vote in Nevada, obtain a Nevada automobile and renter’s insurance, join a Nevada synagogue, and sell one of his many homes prior to the date of his asserted residency change, but do all of the above with a simple intent to defraud the taxman, have no real desire or intent to actually live or spend time in Nevada for any substantial length of time, and just live at one's various other homes while going to Vegas occasionally to gamble. Note that I have zero knowledge of the particular individual in question, so I take no position as to whether or not the above is true in this particular instance. I am just asserting that the taxman looks into this because it does happen. People see the simple legal test, and try to back-out some evidence that they think will satisfy the IRS or similar authorities.
- btilly 9y agoIn fact all of this is less work for the very wealthy than you might think. Do you remember John McCain being asked in 2008 how many houses he owned and not knowing the answer? I know people like that. In fact I know a woman who travels around the world, owns multiple properties in multiple US states, and also manages to keep up official Canadian residency. I've been to three of her houses in the Los Angeles area, but I'd bet that she isn't considered a resident of California for tax purposes.
- Simon_says 9y agoYea, but the rental income from houses in California are taxable by the California FTB. That's a reasonable compromise. What's less clearly reasonable is whether a California resident should pay CA taxes on a rental house in, say, Guatemala, but that's also the CA FTB's position.
- btilly 9y agoThose aren't rental houses, though she does let family/friends stay sometimes... :-)
- 9y ago
- Aaargh20318 9y agoIsn't it just the date when you registered as a resident in city you moved to ?
- delinka 9y agoPerhaps not dispositive, but without evidence otherwise, FTB’s belief is not sufficient to convinct. It’s always possible that your fellow citizens are crooked assholes. But evidence should always be required to get a punitive conviction.