5 ms·

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion:

by wooster 14y ago

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion: Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small business owners and investors, it announced the tax would be reinstated retroactively. This means those who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for unpaid taxes, plus interest, stretching all the way back to 2008. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/21/the-california-tax-that-terrifies-tech/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/21/the-california-tax-th...

RexRollman 14y ago
The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.
- sybhn 14y ago
  Scary! Which part of my net money belongs to me? Do we have to tt money to the caiman AFTER paying taxes now?
- lilthing 14y ago
  >The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal. if you want to make duly passed state laws like this illegal, you would need to take a time machine back to May of 1787 and try to add "no ex post facto law shall be passed" to the constitution. if you do can I come with you just to see the look on your face?
  - lilthing 14y ago
    I guess my joke didn't come across. The Constitution already has the words "no ex post facto law shall be passed" in it (my joke is that all that work going back to try to add it would be wasted) right after the words that congress can't just declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial. Just Google "no ex post facto shall be passed."
- muzz 14y ago
  Constitutionality of law indicates otherwise.
- joshAg 14y ago
  the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law. However, only taxes paid in the last four years are subject to court rulings like this due to statutes of limitation, which is why the CFTB went back four years, and not zero (everyone paying after the law was found to be invalid would have a 14th amendment suit since the law is invalid), three (see previous) or five (statute of limitations).
  - RexRollman 14y ago
    Okay, thanks for the info!
  - jclarkcom 14y ago
    > the tax law was found to be invalid by a court This isn't quite true, only part of the law was found to be unconstitutional (the part requiring that 80% of your payroll be located in CA). The FTB could have chose to continue the law but would have to retroactively pay people who previously applied for this deduction and were refused because they had >20% payroll outside of CA.
muzz 14y ago
That was an extremely rare tax deduction that few had every even heard of before an article about it came out in January. It was struck down by courts as unconstitutional, so the deduction had to be disqualified retroactively.

by wooster 14y ago

RexRollman 14y ago

The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

sybhn 14y ago
Scary! Which part of my net money belongs to me? Do we have to tt money to the caiman AFTER paying taxes now?
lilthing 14y ago
>The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal. if you want to make duly passed state laws like this illegal, you would need to take a time machine back to May of 1787 and try to add "no ex post facto law shall be passed" to the constitution. if you do can I come with you just to see the look on your face?
- lilthing 14y ago
  I guess my joke didn't come across. The Constitution already has the words "no ex post facto law shall be passed" in it (my joke is that all that work going back to try to add it would be wasted) right after the words that congress can't just declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial. Just Google "no ex post facto shall be passed."
muzz 14y ago
Constitutionality of law indicates otherwise.
joshAg 14y ago
the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law. However, only taxes paid in the last four years are subject to court rulings like this due to statutes of limitation, which is why the CFTB went back four years, and not zero (everyone paying after the law was found to be invalid would have a 14th amendment suit since the law is invalid), three (see previous) or five (statute of limitations).
- RexRollman 14y ago
  Okay, thanks for the info!
- jclarkcom 14y ago
  > the tax law was found to be invalid by a court This isn't quite true, only part of the law was found to be unconstitutional (the part requiring that 80% of your payroll be located in CA). The FTB could have chose to continue the law but would have to retroactively pay people who previously applied for this deduction and were refused because they had >20% payroll outside of CA.

muzz 14y ago

That was an extremely rare tax deduction that few had every even heard of before an article about it came out in January. It was struck down by courts as unconstitutional, so the deduction had to be disqualified retroactively.