5 ms·

Headline should be "High-tax states like California and New York do not like it when you pretend to live elsewhere in order to avoid taxes." Every example seem

by rconti 8y ago

Headline should be "High-tax states like California and New York do not like it when you pretend to live elsewhere in order to avoid taxes." Every example seemed to be about people who were trying to dodge taxes while still actually having the "high tax" state as a de-facto primary residence.

compiler-guy 8y ago
Where "every example" is better phrased as, "There are a wide variety of living situations that involve two states; and some look more like domociling oneself in one, rather than the other." Yes, some of these examples were pretty likely fraud, but some also seem like real moves that the tax auditors weren't happy about.
adrianmonk 8y ago
Yeah, I expected this article to be about leaving. Instead it's about pretending to leave.
exegete 8y ago
At least in the case of New York they still tax non-residents on income earned from New York. (I realize it may be less for non-residents than residents). It seems strange that I am legally obligated to pay taxes to a State but have no vote in the choosing representatives who levy those taxes.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  Non-residents pay city/state sales taxes as well, and that doesn’t give voting rights either.
- rconti 8y ago
  That's a good point. That's a thing in California too. There's a 540NR for reporting non-resident income earned in California. I guess it never seemed 'unfair' to me because when I was a non-resident I was a student who spent most of my time in CA, and that's where I worked, so it seemed logical. In some more complicated situations where you technically earn money in the state even though you don't have a home there, I could see how it would feel unfair. (I can't think of such a situation off the top of my head, but I'm sure they exist.. actually the athlete example might be a good one).
  - exegete 8y ago
    Yes, that's true. Most people who work in a state use some of that state's services (e.g., public transit, emergency services, etc.) and hopefully the state they do reside in gives some kind of credit for those payments.

by rconti 8y ago

compiler-guy 8y ago

Where "every example" is better phrased as, "There are a wide variety of living situations that involve two states; and some look more like domociling oneself in one, rather than the other." Yes, some of these examples were pretty likely fraud, but some also seem like real moves that the tax auditors weren't happy about.

adrianmonk 8y ago

Yeah, I expected this article to be about leaving. Instead it's about pretending to leave.

exegete 8y ago

At least in the case of New York they still tax non-residents on income earned from New York. (I realize it may be less for non-residents than residents). It seems strange that I am legally obligated to pay taxes to a State but have no vote in the choosing representatives who levy those taxes.

kgwgk 8y ago
Non-residents pay city/state sales taxes as well, and that doesn’t give voting rights either.
rconti 8y ago
That's a good point. That's a thing in California too. There's a 540NR for reporting non-resident income earned in California. I guess it never seemed 'unfair' to me because when I was a non-resident I was a student who spent most of my time in CA, and that's where I worked, so it seemed logical. In some more complicated situations where you technically earn money in the state even though you don't have a home there, I could see how it would feel unfair. (I can't think of such a situation off the top of my head, but I'm sure they exist.. actually the athlete example might be a good one).
- exegete 8y ago
  Yes, that's true. Most people who work in a state use some of that state's services (e.g., public transit, emergency services, etc.) and hopefully the state they do reside in gives some kind of credit for those payments.