4 ms·

Yes, 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

Yes, 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 ago
In 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 ago
  Yea, 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 ago
    Those aren't rental houses, though she does let family/friends stay sometimes... :-)
- Spooky23 9y ago
  US states are pretty aggressive about people like that. Baseball players owe multiple states income taxes based on where they sleep for away games. I have an acquaintance who keeps detailed records of his physical presence on a daily basis due to audit issues with state tax authorities.
rayiner 9y ago
There is no dispute that Hyatt actually moved to Nevada, and did not, for example, spend most of his time in California after purportedly moving. (If he did, California could just have taxed him based on his presence in the state for more than 183 days a year.) What's in dispute is when Hyatt decided to do that, in late 1991 or mid 1992. California is saying "yes, you did those things, but you didn't really mean to move until 9 months later." The problem with California's position is that it's totally legal to decide "hey, I'm going to make a bunch of royalties soon, and I don't want to pay California a dime more than I have to, so I'm moving to Nevada." If you have the intent, you're a resident of the new state on day 1. There is no probation period to show you really mean it.
- berberous 9y ago
  Ah, I see your point now. Thanks for explaining.
coldtea 9y ago
>Yes, 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. So? And why should they be punished for it? Registration should be all that matters.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  We don't allow individuals to choose a flag of convenience. Otherwise, every December 31, every Wall St banker would change residence to New Hampshire to avoid bonus taxation. On the flip side, you probably don't want insurance companies to decide that your winter home in South Carolina is your bona fide residence based on where your car is insured. States like NY, CA and MA generally have consumer rights that are better for the individual.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Otherwise, every December 31, every Wall St banker would change residence to New Hampshire to avoid bonus taxation. Don't allow them to change residence when they don't live there then. It should not have anything to do with the tax department as soon as you're are registered as resident somewhere, nor should the tax department care about your whereabouts.

btilly 9y ago

In 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 ago
Yea, 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 ago
  Those aren't rental houses, though she does let family/friends stay sometimes... :-)
Spooky23 9y ago
US states are pretty aggressive about people like that. Baseball players owe multiple states income taxes based on where they sleep for away games. I have an acquaintance who keeps detailed records of his physical presence on a daily basis due to audit issues with state tax authorities.

rayiner 9y ago

There is no dispute that Hyatt actually moved to Nevada, and did not, for example, spend most of his time in California after purportedly moving. (If he did, California could just have taxed him based on his presence in the state for more than 183 days a year.) What's in dispute is when Hyatt decided to do that, in late 1991 or mid 1992. California is saying "yes, you did those things, but you didn't really mean to move until 9 months later." The problem with California's position is that it's totally legal to decide "hey, I'm going to make a bunch of royalties soon, and I don't want to pay California a dime more than I have to, so I'm moving to Nevada." If you have the intent, you're a resident of the new state on day 1. There is no probation period to show you really mean it.

berberous 9y ago
Ah, I see your point now. Thanks for explaining.

coldtea 9y ago

>Yes, 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. So? And why should they be punished for it? Registration should be all that matters.

Spooky23 9y ago
We don't allow individuals to choose a flag of convenience. Otherwise, every December 31, every Wall St banker would change residence to New Hampshire to avoid bonus taxation. On the flip side, you probably don't want insurance companies to decide that your winter home in South Carolina is your bona fide residence based on where your car is insured. States like NY, CA and MA generally have consumer rights that are better for the individual.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Otherwise, every December 31, every Wall St banker would change residence to New Hampshire to avoid bonus taxation. Don't allow them to change residence when they don't live there then. It should not have anything to do with the tax department as soon as you're are registered as resident somewhere, nor should the tax department care about your whereabouts.