6 ms·
This is similar in vein to GDPR (hear me out) - not in content of course but in the general thought process (ideology?) of those behind it. California is free
by pc86 5y ago
This is similar in vein to GDPR (hear me out) - not in content of course but in the general thought process (ideology?) of those behind it.
California is free to make up whatever nonsense California wants to make up. It doesn't mean that anyone needs to recognize it or be bound by it if they're in California. Just as the GDPR doesn't actually have any authority over US companies that don't operate within the EU, if I'm not a resident of California, California can say whatever it wants about my tax status but that's just not how it works in reality. No other state recognizes FTB's jurisdiction over former-Californian-now-State-X-residents. If you don't live in California when your shares vest, California can claim it has a right to some tax revenue, but it doesn't.
To my knowledge this hasn't been adjudicated to any court outside of California so whether or not it's legal in a broader sense remains to be seen. It's certainly possible, but until there's case law to support California taxing former residents on income earned/vested after California residency ended, it's fanciful.
- rahimnathwani 5y agoYou're right about the parallel. If you never again step foot in California, and have no assets in California, then perhaps there's no way for California to enforce their claim. But, even if no other state would enforce California's claim, couldn't the FTB get a court judgement against you in California? And then enforce by nabbing you next time you pass through SFO, or by seizing any property you might have?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago> No other state recognizes FTB's jurisdiction over former-Californian-now-State-X-residents. If you don't live in California when your shares vest, California can claim it has a right to some tax revenue, but it doesn't. There are a ton of people in the Northeast waiting for the courts to review why NY and MA are entitled to income tax from them even though they have not stepped foot in either state in 18 months. The question is do you have enough time and money to fight it long enough in court while CA/NY/MA can lean on the employers and national banks to simply withhold the funds. Edit: I missed this update, but apparently the SC told NH they cannot sue MA, so as far as I now, NY and MA have been cleared to continue collecting income tax from people not working in their states. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-wont-allow-new-hampshire-to-sue-massachusetts-over-income-tax-fight/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-wont-allow-new-ha...