3 ms·
I can say with confidence that the people you personally know are committing tax fraud.
by itake 5y ago
I can say with confidence that the people you personally know are committing tax fraud.
- MR4D 5y agoYou might want to double check your confidence - unless I’m reading it horribly wrong, Investopedia supports the previous post, not yours. [0] - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/restricted-stock-tax.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/restricted-stoc...
- rahimnathwani 5y agoIf you want to know about California tax law, and you have three options: A) An article on Investopedia, that has a section about taxes in general, but not about California tax in particular. B) A comment from someone on HN talking specifically about California tax law. C) A publication by the California Franchise Tax Board. Which would you pick? If you chose B, check out my earlier comment. If you chose C, check out https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html Not sure why you would choose A, as it's neither specific to California taxes, nor is it an authority.
- pc86 5y agoDoes it feel good to be this needlessly hostile to random people on the internet?
- nick__m 5y agoWhat is so hostile about the previous post ? P.s. I am not a native english speaker so I must be missing something.
- psychlops 5y agoHow dare you be so hostile! Try to tone it down next time!
- sxp 5y agoIt has 8 lines. 7 of those are metacommentary (aka "noise"). 1 is useful information ("data"). It would be more efficient to have a higher signal-to-noise ratio in comments. Especially when responding to someone who is politely asking a question requesting more information.
- nick__m 5y agoThank you for the polite response!
- jedmeyers 5y ago> What is so hostile about the previous post ? We have sensed irony and/or sarcasm in your post, thus it was rightly deemed hostile by the HN post monitors. Please make an attempt to be more polite next time, especially when communicating with high karma individuals.
- sxp 5y agoFor RSUs, your link says "California will tax the wage income to the extent services were performed in California from the grant date to the vesting date." Where did you get the 33%/25% for years 3 & 4?
- jedmeyers 5y ago1 year in Cali out of 3 years after grant before vest = 33% 1 year in Cali out of 4 years after grant before vest = 25%
- jjav 5y ago> If you want to know about California tax law, and you have three options: This is missing the best and most appropriate option: D) Consult with tax accountant/lawyer very familiar with California. If non-trivial money is involved, anything else is playing with fire.
- rahimnathwani 5y agoRight, but that option would have been difficult to execute at 8pm on Monday, when I wrote my comment.
- paxys 5y agoAgain, provide a source for that confidence.
- BooneJS 5y agoMy FAANG employer and my CPA both agree I owe tax on RSUs that “partially vested” while a resident. An example of 48 shares of RSUs that vest 1/48 every month for 4 years (48 months), and I lived in CA for 6 months after they were granted (not vested, granted). In months 1-6, all were 100% California taxable. In month 7, I owed 6/7ths of the normal California tax. In month 8, it was 6/8ths. In month 48, the final vest, will be taxed by California at 6/48ths of a full resident. My new state also taxes them, but I can deduct taxes I pay to California so I don’t get double-taxes.