Are you prepared to go to court to prove that you don’t live in California?

[Chazmatazz269]

I mistakenly assumed that the first reports of this were rhetorical. However, reports are emerging with receipts that strongly suggest California will force you to prove that you no longer live there before they stop taking taxes from you.

legalclarity.org/.../

www.taxesforexpats.com/.../...fornia-exit-tax.html

This from the same state that doesn’t require any form of identification to vote. Yet they will tax you in perpetuity unless and until you take them to court to prove that you neither live nor work there and that you no longer have means of earning money from companies associated with California.
What’s next? Should every citizen of the USA, or even the world, have to prove to the state of California that they don’t live and work there?
Something tells me the same people who think we shouldn’t have to prove that we’re citizens to vote or even remain in the country are going to be in favor of this ridiculous overreach by California.
Are you prepared to prove to California that you don’t live and/or work there? If not, you might well find your earnings garnished and have to go to court to prove the negative.

Updates

5 mo

Society & politics

[WindAtMyBack]

I only read part of the link, but this might not be as unusual as it seems. Notice that it says income derived from the state.

When you live in one state, and your income is from another state, there are rules about which state has first dibs on your taxes. If your income is from California, and you live someone else, California may still have a claim on income tax, even though you don't live there.

I've had this happen in two different states, neither of which was California. In general, the state where you derive your income gets first dibs on the tax, whether you live there or not. It doesn't matter if that income is from working, investments, or whatever.

When I lived in California, I remember a controversy about state workers who get retirement income from California, but move to another state after retirement. I don't know if it's true, but I heard that they could end up paying the FULL income tax in BOTH states. I have some doubts if that's true, but it's possible.

Normally the way it works is the state where you derive the income gets first dibs, and the state where you live gets income ONLY if it has a higher tax - in which case the second state only gets the difference. This is the same way city tax works, only it's a lot more complicated to do your taxes for states.

[Chazmatazz269]

You didn’t have to share that you “only read part of the link”. That’s perfectly clear from your response. First, there are two links. Both have a great deal of information about the logistics and legality of this overreach by the state of California. Additionally, if you look closely at the images i shared, one of them is a picture of a letter received from California demanding proof of a negative. There’s no way to prove that you don’t live somewhere. For some jobs, there’s no way to prove that you don’t work somewhere. The instant that they claim you have inadequate evidence or that you’re faking it, they lay claim to earnings that they have no right to and you end up in court praying that character witnesses are enough to save you from blatant tyranny.
I have worked in five different states including California, and none of them sent me notice to prove that i no longer work or live there once i moved on. I’ve known hundreds of people who have worked in dozens of states including California, and none of them have gone through anything like this. This is new because corrupt California politicians are trying to figure out how to maintain their revenues with residents and businesses leaving in droves due to their ridiculous taxes, regulations and policies. If they are successful even once, that creates a precedent through which they can lawfully steal with impunity from anyone and everyone they want. The vast majority of people can’t afford the legal teams it will take to defeat a US state in court.

[WindAtMyBack]

I read enough of the first link to understand what it's about. I just looked again and I had actually read about 90% of it when I stopped.

Anyway, I 100% stand by what I originally said. While the specific details between states may vary somewhat, this thing in California is basically the same as other states have been doing for ages.

The second link doesn't say anything useful - a whole bunch of "might's with not enough detail to make a solid judgement. Although it says they are going after capital gains avoidance which makes sense. Let's say you have unrealized gains in California over a nine year period. Then you leave the state for a year and sell. Then 90% of your gains occurred in California while only 10% occurred in the other state. Should the second state get all the tax from the gains? Or should California get some of it since you earned 90% of it there?

[RavVid]

Funny. How could it work though? Newsom writes to Abbot asking him to deduct these taxes from these people and send him the money?

I see personal taxation is unconstitutional in Texas however. For my amusement would you mind telling how Newsom gets the cash?

[RavVid]

Thanks for a mho on my complete ignorance :)

[snermcger]

California is what happens when one party rules a state for 70 years. Democrats, since 1956, have held a majority in the California State Senate, with a 30–10 supermajority as of March 2025

It is a net exporter of lefty retardation as the lefties who voted to destroy California are now fleeing to other states oblivious to their part but eager to vote the same way.

[Hagar88]

Sounds about right. California forcing people out but still wants their tax money.

[CuriousMufuxka]

No. Is anyone prepared enough to serve me a notice?

[Mike_Hum]

lol. I’d love to get one of those letters.