California Residency Tax

The Franchise Tax Board Modifies Ruling: After Unfavorable “Doing Business in California” Case

Published on: October 23, 2018 | by Chris Manes

The Franchise Tax Board, California’s taxing authority, has consistently taken an aggressive stance in claiming out-of-state businesses have income tax reporting requirements for “doing business in California.” The FTB reached a limit in Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board, Cal. Ct. App. (5th App. Dist.), 7 Cal. App. 5th 497 (2017). In that case, a California appeals court ruled against the FTB’s claim that a foreign corporation with a passive .02% ownership in a California LLC was doing business in California. As a result, the FTB was forced to modify its ruling on doing business in California by members of multi-member limited liability companies.

FTB Walks Back Prior Ruling

Specifically, the FTB has modified California FTB Legal Ruling No. 2014-01, 07/22/2014, which sets forth the FTB’s analysis on a number of “doing business” scenarios involving members of multiple-member LLCs that are classified as partnerships for tax purposes. The ruling had asserted that the distinction between “manager-managed” and “member-managed” LLCs, made no difference in determining whether a member of the LLC was doing business in California. The reasoning in Swart Enterprises made that assertion untenable. As a result, the FTB has removed the language and replaced it with the innocuous phrase: “a narrow exception may apply in limited circumstances.” Continue reading

Leaving California – Relocating Your Business Out of State

Published on: September 15, 2018 | by Chris Manes

It’s no secret that California has a high state income tax rate. In fact, it has been the undisputed income tax champion for the past decade or so (the middle brackets are more compressed, and some states even have higher middle bracket rates). Nonetheless, despite somewhat overblown media reports, most Californians aren’t in a position to tear their businesses up by the roots and transplant them to low- or zero-income-tax havens like Nevada, Texas and Washington State. Often those businesses have to operate in California, since that’s where the market for the product or service is, or there is valuable cachet in having a California location such as Silicon Valley or Orange County. And often for small businesses and startups, the owner has to be present in-state for the enterprise to operate and grow.

But that’s not always the case, especially when a taxpayer owns numerous entities and some of the income derives from service contracts (usually for management work) among the entities or between the entities and the owner. Moreover, as e-commerce continues to grow in market share, a physical presence in California becomes less and less necessary for many businesses, and relocation may result in tax savings for sales to non-California customers. Some companies may have started in California, but as they’ve prospered, they can operate from any state. In cases like these, some strategic use of out-of-state entities can result in large enough tax savings to make the major step of relocation worthwhile. But details matter.

The Rules Of California Residency Taxation

Before we can address the benefits and pitfalls of relocation, we need to first give an overview of California’s income tax system relating to individual residency and business domicile. Changing residency is not a panacea for every tax problem. It only works in certain situations. And to determine where it works requires understanding the basic rules of how California taxes individual residents, nonresidents and businesses. Continue reading

Leaving California, But Coming Back to Work: Income Tax Traps After Changing Residency

Published on: June 12, 2018 | by Chris Manes

It’s no trick to leave California to avoid its high income taxes – if that’s all you want to do. You can sell all your California assets, including your home, terminate all business contacts, never spend any time in the state after your move, close all your financial accounts, sever all your professional and social connections. And so forth. Taxpayers who leave California lock, stock, and barrel don’t really have to worry about residency issues (despite scary stories on the internet). But in fact, most people who change their legal residency from California have something else in mind. They also want to or have to retain contacts with the state. That might mean a vacation home or income properties; it might be managing a California business remotely, with operations in the state; it might involve working while in California, from meeting potential clients or investors to working at a branch of an employer for designated periods. The last situation, which is fairly common, requires planning, since changing residency may not be enough to avoid California income taxes if your work for an out-of-state or in-state employer brings you back to California.

When Changing Residency Isn’t Enough

A typical situation involves a business owner who changes legal residency and moves the business out of state. But it can also involve an executive who moves out of state, but still has to make business trips to California, because that’s where the company’s client base or operations are located. Well and good. Unless a taxpayer changes legal residency, everything else is moot from a tax perspective. But the fact is California is an economic powerhouse. Few businesses, especially those in high-tech and financial services, can succeed without participating in the California market. And that often means meeting with and cultivating potential clients or investors in Los Angeles or Silicon Valley, where the capital, expertise and demand resides, or spending time working at a California branch of the company.

If that’s the case, it’s important to understand the differences between personal residency versus doing business in California versus working while physically present in California. These are three separate tax circumstances, which require different approaches to manage. Continue reading

Bitcoin and California Residency: Planning Ahead Makes All the Tax Difference

Published on: March 12, 2018 | by Chris Manes

The fortunes currently being made in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency investments and trading offer unique opportunities for tax planning that other appreciated assets often do not. This article discusses one of those aspects: the importance of residency planning in reducing cryptocurrency tax liability at the state level.

What Makes Cryptocurrency Conducive To Residency Tax Planning?

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are unique assets in many ways. But for residency tax planning purposes, these three factors make all the difference.

First, much of the taxable gain in appreciated cryptocurrency investment remains unrealized – that is to say, the investors have yet to sell or exchange their initial investment. This is due to the volatile nature of cryptocurrency values, but it’s also a result of the second factor.

Second, unlike traditional investments, the Bitcoin phenomenon has been driven by young disruptive investors, not the usual Wall Street sages with briefcases stuffed with earnings-to-value reports. Many of my clients made relatively small investments, either directly or through mining, in their early twenties, and now, as they enter their thirties, they find themselves sitting on millions or even tens of millions of untaxed appreciated cryptocurrency. Because younger people tend to be mobile, they can move anywhere before cashing out. Which brings us to the third factor. Continue reading

California and Nonresident Whistleblower Awards: No Good Deed Goes Untaxed – Or Does It?

Published on: January 27, 2018 | by Chris Manes

Whistleblower awards are big business. In 2016 alone, the IRS paid over $60 million to whistleblowers. The SEC awarded a similar amount. A patchwork of other whistleblower laws involving 57 federal statutes and 44 states, including California, also result in tens of millions in annual payouts. Not all whistleblower laws involve awards, but rather damages for retaliation. For instance, Penn State was ordered to pay coach Michael McQueary $12 million after firing him for reporting the notorious Jerry Sandusky to college officials. Though the amounts vary widely year to year, the trend is more tips filed, more whistleblower cases, bigger awards.

Whistleblower cases usually take a long time, with many obstacles along the way that can derail final payment. The average is three years. It’s a long wait, but it does provide an opportunity for tax planning for those who don’t want to be taxed by California for an award that can run from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars (my practice has involved tax planning for clients who received awards along most of this spectrum).

How Are Whistleblower Awards Taxed?

At the federal level, the taxation of whistleblower awards has been highly litigated and subject to Congressional tinkering. But the ultimate result is the proceeds of the award are taxed as ordinary income. How to calculate the amount of the “proceeds,” and whether a deduction for attorney’s fees (which are usually a large percentage of the award) is allowed, depends on the particular federal statute that applies. Continue reading

Happy Halloween for Nonresidents: It’s 4600 Notice Time Again

Published on: October 26, 2017 | by Chris Manes

California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) sends out 4600 Notices “Request for Tax Return” when it gets a tax “information return” with a California address on it, but the taxpayer doesn’t file a California return, either as a resident (a Form 540) or as a nonresident (a Form 540NR). An “information return” are documents like a 1098, 1099, K-1 or W2. There are other reasons, but this is a major one.

To give a common example, if a nonresident owns a vacation home in California with a mortgage, and he told the lender to send the Form 1098 mortgage interest form to his vacation home address, he has likely just earned a 4600 Notice. That’s because the FTB will see a 1098 with a local address associated with a person who hasn’t filed a California tax return.

This is a common mistake. It also happens with Form 1099-INT involving bank interest from a local bank account (often involving de minimis amounts), or payments from brokerage accounts or out-of-state pensions. The lesson is, nonresidents should never use a California address (whether it’s a vacation home or a relative’s place) for any tax information document.

Frequently Asked Questions: California Residency Rules

Published on: October 8, 2017 | by Chris Manes

Manes Law has over two decades of experience in advising clients on California residency law, handling residency audits, assisting businesses relocate out of California, and appealing residency determinations. Based on this experience, we have assembled this list of frequently asked questions and provided brief answers.

1.Q. How does California tax residents versus nonresidents?

A. California taxes residents on all their income, from any source, no matter where it is generated. In contrast, nonresidents are only subject to California income taxes with respect to “California-source” income (that is, income generated in California). If a nonresident has no California-source income, then the nonresident should owe no taxes to California.

2.Q. I am a nonresident who owns a California vacation home. If I spend more than six months in California, am I automatically a resident?

A. No. There is a lot of mythology on the internet about the “six-month presumption.” While it’s always better from a residency perspective to spend less time in California, spending more than six months in California does not automatically make you a resident. In fact, no one thing will ever make you a resident, and no one thing makes you a nonresident. The test for legal residency is complex and involves many factors (discussed here). You can spend more than six months in California without becoming a resident, but you should plan carefully to make sure an extended stay plus other contacts don’t result in an audit or unfavorable residency determination. Nor is it a good idea to spend more than six months year in and year out. Doing so suggest a closer connection to California than your home state. In addition, beware of the nine-month presumption, discussed in the next question. See our article, “The Six-Month Presumption In California Residency Law: Not All It’s Cracked Up To Be“.

3.Q. I’ve heard that if I spend more than nine months in California, I am definitely a California resident. Is that true?

A. California law applies a “nine-month presumption” to visitors. That is, if you spend more than nine months in California in any tax year, you are presumed to be a resident. But the presumption is rebuttable. Other factors may apply that result in you not being a legal resident, despite the extended stay. Prudence, however, suggests you shouldn’t tempt fate with a stay of such length. As a practical matter, there is only one old case in which a taxpayer spent more than nine months in California and was able to rebut the nine-month presumption. So, be forewarned. Continue reading

Guidelines for Determining California Residency: A Primer for Serious Snowbirds

Published on: September 1, 2017 | by Chris Manes

Seasonal Visitors to California and Residency Anxiety

Out-of-state visitors who own vacation homes in California or otherwise spend significant time here on a seasonal basis (traditionally known as “snowbirds” because the season is inevitably winter) are often anxious about their residency status. There’s good reason to be. California rules for determining residency are notoriously difficult to grasp. It’s altogether possible for the innocent actions of a nonresident to trigger a residency audit. And sometimes the audit has a bad outcome, with tax consequences that bite. Let’s go over the basics of how California determines residency for tax purposes. They can be confusing, and sometimes brutal.

How Residents And Nonresidents Are Taxed

California residents are subject to California state income tax on all income regardless where earned. It doesn’t matter what or where the source. If a California resident derives income from investments in Saudi Arabia or from pensions accrued while working out-of-state, California will tax that income. The resident may qualify for a credit for paying taxes to other states, but the default rule is, a resident’s global income is subject to California income tax. Period. With a top bracket rate that is currently the highest in the nation, California residency comes with a significant tax impact.

In contrast, nonresidents are only subject to California state income tax on their “California-source” income. That may be zero or it may be significant. California-source income takes many forms, some obvious, some more subtle. It could be rents derived from California real estate or income from business operations or wages for performing temporary work in-state (obvious). Or it could be a portion of the sales proceeds attributed to a noncompete clause when a founder sells his California business, or the gain from non-statutory stock options vested while the employee worked in California (not obvious). To celebrity name drop, when LeBron James, an Ohio resident, used to play the Lakers at Staples Center for the Cleveland Cavaliers, he paid California taxes on the income he made on game night, which in his case was no small amount. [By the way, now that James signed with the Lakers, he has a different problem: whether he can work for a California employer, train and practice here for a significant part of the year, and still remain a nonresident – the answer is yes, but that’s a different analysis (see, “Nonresidents Working Remotely for California Businesses: How to Take Paul Newman’s ‘The Sting’ Out of Your Taxes“).

So, the stakes can be high when determining whether a taxpayer is a California resident or not.

LEAVING YOUR CALIFORNIA LLC BEHIND – How California Taxes The Sale of Business Interests by Nonresidents

Published on: December 12, 2014 | by Chris Manes

The Issue

California residents who plan to move to another (by definition lower income tax) state, either to retire or for business purposes, often face the problem of how to handle their business interests situated in California. Mostly these interests are LLCs, the preferred entity for many modern business operations. The taxpayer often wants to hold onto the LLC interests and continue to get the income stream until some later date after the move. The question that arises is, what are the California income tax consequences of selling a California LLC interest after the taxpayer changes residency to another state?

Overview