4 ms·

I moved six years ago. I got demand letters from the CA tax board for four years after I left. I didn't owe them a dime but they still tried. Had to call and s

I moved six years ago. I got demand letters from the CA tax board for four years after I left. I didn't owe them a dime but they still tried. Had to call and submit paperwork every time. At least the CA tax board people are super agreeable. It was annoying but less so because they were nice.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
This year was the last year I owed CA taxes. You still owe them on shares that vest that you earned when you were in CA. Looking forward to not filing taxes with them next year.
- Jarwain 5y ago
  Do you know if this is true wrt options as well?
  - entangledqubit 5y ago
    Not a tax expert but IIRC since they were earned in CA, they generally are taxed when they result in a net gain of some sort (e.g. sold directly or exercised). Go to Section E of the FTB's publication 1100.
    - Jarwain 5y ago
      urgh maybe I should talk to a tax expert. The section discusses NSOs but I have ISOs. I also don't know how it's impacted by the fact that the company I work for is based in Boston (options were granted after I moved to Cali though), and I'm mainly curious as to how it would be impacted if I move to an income-tax-free state before the options vest
      - junar 5y ago
        FTB Pub 1004, Section D goes into ISOs in greater detail. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html#D-Incentive-Stock-Options https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html#D-Incentive-Stoc...
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  RSU's? Exercised options? My understanding is that you would pay taxes on shares sold. Shares not sold are not yet income. Taxes get paid when RSU's vest but that is usually done by your company on your behalf and the numbers will show up in your tax paperwork. A potential wealth tax may side step that however. Either way I let my tax lawyers figure all that out.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    This isn't right. They are counted as income when they vest. They will appear on your W-2. When you sell them is not important for the purpose of income taxation.
    - LinuxBender 5y ago
      Yeah I think the phrasing threw me off. There are taxes paid at the time of vesting of RSU's (vs options) but that is usually done by your employer before you even see the stock in your stock management accounts. The bigger and more ugly taxes come from selling off the stock.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Depends on how long you wait to sell, and if what happens to the asset price in the mean time. I sell all my shares the day after they vest or the same day. I pay basically zero net taxes on that action.
ipv6ipv4 5y ago
This throws me for a loop every time I interact with them. FTB folks on the phone are always very nice and helpful.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The fact that they're nice and polite in contrast with literally every other state agency who's taking your money is an indicator that they don't have a legal leg to stand on in many cases and don't want people digging in their heels and hiring a lawyer.
thraxil 5y ago
My partner lived and worked in CA in the early 2000's. Moved to NYC in 2004. Had zero ties to CA after that. Switched her driver's license, voter registration, filed and paid taxes in NY, owned and operated a company in NY, had no CA bank accounts or investments, never set foot back in the state. CA still would regularly come after her about every other year and make her go through the same process of calling and sending them paperwork to convince them that she didn't live there. Her bank accounts would get frozen for weeks at a time and she's paid lawyers thousands of dollars to clear it up. That continued regularly until 2014, when we moved abroad and she closed her US bank accounts. CA probably still thinks she's a resident but now there aren't any bank accounts for them to go after.
- kwere 5y ago
  This Is One example that Freedom in USA Is a "flexible" concept expecially for the authorities
- sjg007 5y ago
  Was the bank account opened in California? That may be the reason.
  - voxic11 5y ago
    > had no CA bank accounts
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Was the bank account opened in California? That may be the reason. That shouldn't be a justification if the person doesn't actually live in the state anymore. I have bank accounts in states I haven't lived for decades and that hasn't been any issue. Heck I even autodeposit my salary (from California) to my primary bank account in a different state, out of habit. (It's good for credit rating to keep long-standing accounts open, so that's why I never close accounts if I move.)
- saltcured 5y ago
  Do you know whether she filed the right partial-year CA tax filing for the year you moved? It almost sounds like she missed a step that would "close out" the CA tax records... My wife and I moved overseas around the same time, filing one CA non-resident/partial year filing. In subsequent years, we only filed IRS returns with the foreign earned income exclusion, etc. and had no further issues. It was the other, ongoing treasury department reporting requirements that were a pain, not taxes per se. We eventually moved back and had another CA partial-year return to start things up again. We even used a trusted relative's CA address as our mailing address for federal tax filings and US financial accounts we kept open while abroad. We did let our CA drivers licenses lapse while getting new ones overseas.
hamburglar 5y ago
Same story here. I moved from CA to WA on Jan 4 of one year where that meant I worked a total of two days in CA for that calendar year and it took me at least 4 years of threatening letters and never-ending phone calls before they gave up their claim that I owed CA taxes for half that new year.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

This year was the last year I owed CA taxes. You still owe them on shares that vest that you earned when you were in CA. Looking forward to not filing taxes with them next year.

Jarwain 5y ago
Do you know if this is true wrt options as well?
- entangledqubit 5y ago
  Not a tax expert but IIRC since they were earned in CA, they generally are taxed when they result in a net gain of some sort (e.g. sold directly or exercised). Go to Section E of the FTB's publication 1100.
  - Jarwain 5y ago
    urgh maybe I should talk to a tax expert. The section discusses NSOs but I have ISOs. I also don't know how it's impacted by the fact that the company I work for is based in Boston (options were granted after I moved to Cali though), and I'm mainly curious as to how it would be impacted if I move to an income-tax-free state before the options vest
    - junar 5y ago
      FTB Pub 1004, Section D goes into ISOs in greater detail. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html#D-Incentive-Stock-Options https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html#D-Incentive-Stoc...
LinuxBender 5y ago
RSU's? Exercised options? My understanding is that you would pay taxes on shares sold. Shares not sold are not yet income. Taxes get paid when RSU's vest but that is usually done by your company on your behalf and the numbers will show up in your tax paperwork. A potential wealth tax may side step that however. Either way I let my tax lawyers figure all that out.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  This isn't right. They are counted as income when they vest. They will appear on your W-2. When you sell them is not important for the purpose of income taxation.
  - LinuxBender 5y ago
    Yeah I think the phrasing threw me off. There are taxes paid at the time of vesting of RSU's (vs options) but that is usually done by your employer before you even see the stock in your stock management accounts. The bigger and more ugly taxes come from selling off the stock.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      Depends on how long you wait to sell, and if what happens to the asset price in the mean time. I sell all my shares the day after they vest or the same day. I pay basically zero net taxes on that action.

ipv6ipv4 5y ago

This throws me for a loop every time I interact with them. FTB folks on the phone are always very nice and helpful.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The fact that they're nice and polite in contrast with literally every other state agency who's taking your money is an indicator that they don't have a legal leg to stand on in many cases and don't want people digging in their heels and hiring a lawyer.

thraxil 5y ago

My partner lived and worked in CA in the early 2000's. Moved to NYC in 2004. Had zero ties to CA after that. Switched her driver's license, voter registration, filed and paid taxes in NY, owned and operated a company in NY, had no CA bank accounts or investments, never set foot back in the state. CA still would regularly come after her about every other year and make her go through the same process of calling and sending them paperwork to convince them that she didn't live there. Her bank accounts would get frozen for weeks at a time and she's paid lawyers thousands of dollars to clear it up. That continued regularly until 2014, when we moved abroad and she closed her US bank accounts. CA probably still thinks she's a resident but now there aren't any bank accounts for them to go after.

kwere 5y ago
This Is One example that Freedom in USA Is a "flexible" concept expecially for the authorities
sjg007 5y ago
Was the bank account opened in California? That may be the reason.
- voxic11 5y ago
  > had no CA bank accounts
- jjav 5y ago
  > Was the bank account opened in California? That may be the reason. That shouldn't be a justification if the person doesn't actually live in the state anymore. I have bank accounts in states I haven't lived for decades and that hasn't been any issue. Heck I even autodeposit my salary (from California) to my primary bank account in a different state, out of habit. (It's good for credit rating to keep long-standing accounts open, so that's why I never close accounts if I move.)
saltcured 5y ago
Do you know whether she filed the right partial-year CA tax filing for the year you moved? It almost sounds like she missed a step that would "close out" the CA tax records... My wife and I moved overseas around the same time, filing one CA non-resident/partial year filing. In subsequent years, we only filed IRS returns with the foreign earned income exclusion, etc. and had no further issues. It was the other, ongoing treasury department reporting requirements that were a pain, not taxes per se. We eventually moved back and had another CA partial-year return to start things up again. We even used a trusted relative's CA address as our mailing address for federal tax filings and US financial accounts we kept open while abroad. We did let our CA drivers licenses lapse while getting new ones overseas.

hamburglar 5y ago

Same story here. I moved from CA to WA on Jan 4 of one year where that meant I worked a total of two days in CA for that calendar year and it took me at least 4 years of threatening letters and never-ending phone calls before they gave up their claim that I owed CA taxes for half that new year.