5 ms·
California may or may not be in the wrong here; I don't know, but I don't think there's enough information in the original article or the one you link to make t
by Simon_says 9y ago
California may or may not be in the wrong here; I don't know, but I don't think there's enough information in the original article or the one you link to make that determination.
State residency is a complicated topic with no "bright line" rules that will definitively decide the issue, but California residency has a set of guidelines called the Bragg Factors that courts use in a "totality of circumstances" sense to determine residency. They are:
1. The location of all of the taxpayer’s residential real property and the approximate sizes and values of each of the residences;
2. The state wherein the taxpayer’s spouse and children reside;
3. The state wherein the taxpayer’s children attend school;
4. The state wherein the taxpayer claims the homeowner’s property tax exemption on a residence;
5. The taxpayer’s telephone records (i.e.1, the origination point of taxpayer’s telephone calls);
6. The number of days the taxpayer spends in California versus the number of days the taxpayer spends in other states and the general purpose of such days (i.e., vacation, business, etc.);
7. The location where the taxpayer files his tax returns, both federal and state, and the state of residence claimed by the taxpayer on such returns;
8. The location of the taxpayer’s bank and savings accounts;
9. The origination point of the taxpayer’s checking account transactions and credit card transactions;
10. The state wherein the taxpayer maintains memberships in social, religious and professional organizations;
11. The state wherein the taxpayer registers his automobiles;
12. The state wherein the taxpayer maintains a driver’s license;
13. The state wherein the taxpayer maintains voter registration and the taxpayer’s voting participation history;
14. The state wherein the taxpayer obtains professional services, such as doctors, dentists, accountants and attorneys;
15. The state wherein the taxpayer is employed;
16. The state wherein the taxpayer maintains or owns business interests;
17. The state wherein the taxpayer holds a professional license or licenses;
18. The state wherein the taxpayer owns investment real property; and
19. The indications in affidavits from various individuals discussing the taxpayer’s residency.
Presumably all of these issues have been hashed out and documented in court.
- rayiner 9y agoThe fact-specific factors seem to come into play when you've got either domicile or actual presence in California. From Bragg: https://www.boe.ca.gov/legal/pdf/Bragg_rs.pdf https://www.boe.ca.gov/legal/pdf/Bragg_rs.pdf > The term “resident” includes individuals in this state for other than a temporary or transitory purpose, and individuals domiciled in this state who are outside the state for a temporary or transitory purpose. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 17014, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(2).) The primary consideration under either facet of the definition is whether or not the individual is present in California or absent from California for a temporary or transitory purpose. By selling his house renting an apartment in Nevada, it's pretty clear he at least changed is domicile to Nevada, if not his residency. But if he didn't have substantial presence in California either, then it's pretty clear he doesn't fall under the definition of "resident" at all, even without getting into the fact-specific inquiry. The lack of domicile or actual presence is important. As Bragg states: > The purpose of the residency statute is to insure that all individuals who are in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose enjoying the benefits and protection of the state should in return contribute to its support States can tax people who avail themselves of the benefits of living in, or at least spending large amounts of time in the state. What California is doing to Hyatt is not that; it's trying to tax someone who used to live in the State. In my view, applying a fact-specific residency test to someone who is neither domiciled or present in a state creates serious Constitutional concerns. Many of the factors, such as "the taxpayer's voting participation history" or "wherein the taxpayer holds a professional license" or "wherein the taxpayer owns investment real property" are not things that are easily changed in the short term. But it's probably a Constitutional requirement that people be able to change their residency quickly. States cannot impose barriers to the free flow of residents between states. Trying to "hang onto" someone who is trying to leave arguably creates such a barrier.
- Simon_says 9y agoOK, good points, but I can't see anywhere how many days out of the years 1991 and 1992 Hyatt spent in California vs Nevada. I'm sure it's been discussed by lawyers somewhere, but that information is just not in the articles.