California seeks taxes from family who moved to Florida

[Hoodat]

Yes, they can be forced to comply with the evidentiary request.  They either respond,   or   they suffer a tax assessment

Ah, so they have a choice.  That isn't being "forced to comply".

Following your advice on taxes is about as smart as following Pretti's advice on the Second Amendment and confronting law enforcement.

I offered no advice on taxes.

[Hoodat]

What likely happened here is that the wife worked remotely for a California company or was self-employed.  After moving to Florida, she maintained that same employment.  It is clear from the California FTB letter that the couple did indeed file a 540NR.

[catfish1957]

First, a state can quite easily take possession of a taxpayer's out-of-state property by simply obtaining a judgment against the taxpayer from an in-state court, domesticating that judgment in the state where the property is located, and then enforcing the judgment in that other state's courts, up to and including levy against the taxpayer's property in that other state.

Second, putting property into a trust or some entity is not a foolproof method of insulating assets from the owner's tax debts.  If those tax debts already exist, the transfer to a trust or an entity will either be disregarded as a fraudulent transfer, or else the lien for those taxes will follow the property into the trust or other entity, where it can be enforced against the trustee or the entity.

HA HA HA!!!!!

You are approaching insanity,  Your premise assumes someone might move from CA from CA to NY, IL, or other socialist slanted state. 

If you think some TX or FL judge will allow for this level of 10A infringment?   Dude....  seek help.

Duck's AI on the matter?:

Asset Seizure in California
Overview of Asset Forfeiture

In California, asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property believed to be connected to criminal activity. This can include various types of assets such as homes, vehicles, and money. The government must file a lawsuit against the property itself, not the owner, and prove that the property is linked to a crime.
Conditions for Seizure

    Criminal Activity: Assets can be seized if they are used in or obtained through criminal conduct.
    Legal Process: The government must demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the property is associated with illegal activities.
    Owner's Rights: Individuals have rights and can contest the seizure in court.

Moving and Asset Seizure

If a person moves, it does not automatically lead to asset seizure. However, if the government has evidence that the assets are connected to criminal activity, they can still pursue forfeiture regardless of the owner's location.
Conclusion

While moving does not directly trigger asset seizure, it is essential to understand that the government can still act on assets believed to be involved in crime, regardless of where the owner resides.


So Bubba...  Unless you are Heisenberg, just chill on the matter.  I'd laugh off any silly lein Newscum will try to impose....  he'd lose in court.  And it would take just a few high profile test cases to do it,.

[roamer_1]

HA HA HA!!!!!

He's right. And he's not talking about asset seizure.

He's talking about summary judgement by a civil judge because you aren't there to answer it. That's the play here.

SURE, if you answer the summons and appear, or even if you hire a capable lawyer, it probably won't stand.

But sure enough, many will be clean out of fun tickets because of their move, and won't consult a lawyer, and many more will be fed up with Cali's crap and think they are out of reach, figuring they can just ignore the summons.

THEM folks are gonna get slapped upside the head with a summary judgement in arrears, sent to collection.

[MeganC]

He's right. And he's not talking about asset seizure.

He's talking about summary judgement by a civil judge because you aren't there to answer it. That's the play here.

SURE, if you answer the summons and appear, or even if you hire a capable lawyer, it probably won't stand.

But sure enough, many will be clean out of fun tickets because of their move, and won't consult a lawyer, and many more will be fed up with Cali's crap and think they are out of reach, figuring they can just ignore the summons.

THEM folks are gonna get slapped upside the head with a summary judgement in arrears, sent to collection.

This is probably going to come as a surprise to you, But the California Franchise Tax Board and the California Board of Equalization have a habit of sending tax bills to people who do not owe any money.

That is right.

Why do they do this? Because approximately twenty percent of people receiving a tax notice will simply pay it. Another twenty percent will negotiate a settlement. That's why.

The other sixty percent who ignore them do just fine.

[catfish1957]

He's right. And he's not talking about asset seizure.

He's talking about summary judgement by a civil judge because you aren't there to answer it. That's the play here.

SURE, if you answer the summons and appear, or even if you hire a capable lawyer, it probably won't stand.

But sure enough, many will be clean out of fun tickets because of their move, and won't consult a lawyer, and many more will be fed up with Cali's crap and think they are out of reach, figuring they can just ignore the summons.

THEM folks are gonna get slapped upside the head with a summary judgement in arrears, sent to collection.

It would be beaten for reasons I stated earlier   And my final instruction to my attorney would be....   "This is from my client"

[Hoodat]

He's right. And he's not talking about asset seizure.

He's talking about summary judgement by a civil judge because you aren't there to answer it. That's the play here.

No, we're nowhere close to that.  FTB is asking for moving receipts, a moving inventory list, and all stock options of the wife.  They are gathering evidence and are hoping their future defendant will supply them with some.

If they seek a civil judgment, then the defense has the right at that time to garner a defense at which point they would produce all of their Florida living expenses and toll records.  Until then, California can pound sand.  Never under any circumstances do you help the prosecution prosecute you.

[roamer_1]

This is probably going to come as a surprise to you, But the California Franchise Tax Board and the California Board of Equalization have a habit of sending tax bills to people who do not owe any money.

That is right.

Why do they do this? Because approximately twenty percent of people receiving a tax notice will simply pay it. Another twenty percent will negotiate a settlement. That's why.

The other sixty percent who ignore them do just fine.

Sorry darlin, but I ain't surprised at all. 
In fact, I expect it. Every government is going to be corrupted, at least in part, and every politician is a greasy grifter. They can only rise above the bar I have set for the whole damn thing.

As a business owner all my life, I doubt you will find a way that a government can penalize that wasn't at least attempted on me. Some of it my fault no doubt, but largely unintended in all cases. I have played all these games before.

Even out here in Timbuck14.

In the immortal words of Buckaroo Bonzai: No matter where you go, there you are. 

It's all the same, everywhere. If you put ANY trust in government or politicians, you must be blind. It's always the biggest confidence game in town.

[roamer_1]

No, we're nowhere close to that.  FTB is asking for moving receipts, a moving inventory list, and all stock options of the wife.  They are gathering evidence and are hoping their future defendant will supply them with some.

If they seek a civil judgment, then the defense has the right at that time to garner a defense at which point they would produce all of their Florida living expenses and toll records.  Until then, California can pound sand.  Never under any circumstances do you help the prosecution prosecute you.

Sure, and if you don't jump through all their hoops (which they purposefully make onerous), and don't answer, the thing will go to summary judgement and on to collections.

Like I said, I have played this game before.

Yes, you can try to undo the monkey knot once it is already around your neck, but it will cost you way more than before the fact.

If they contact you, you had better lawyer up right off the get-go.

But all too often, they will say you were served, when you never were (how do you prove a negative?)... And the whole pile of poo just lands in your lap, gift wrapped with a bow, already past judgement, and already past collections.

WA state did that one to me for an order to appear over a bar fight. No warrant. Just a civil judgement for an action that was deemed self-defense and that others went to jail for.

I never got served. I didn't know any of it was happening until the notice of lien against my cars. That little adventure only cost 3 grand to fix.