California seeks taxes from family who moved to Florida

[PeteS in CA]

California seeks taxes from family who moved to Florida

https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_fd93e155-cfde-4f3c-b33d-a22a084ec19f.html

(The Center Square) – According to documents posted online by a family who formerly lived in California, the Golden State is trying to collect income taxes years after the family moved to Florida.

The documents, sent on Jan. 6, 2026, asked for receipts, invoices, canceled checks and other documentation showing that the family moved from California to Florida nearly four years ago. The California Franchise Tax Board, which sent the letter, also asked the family for a “narrative of the circumstances” surrounding the family’s move out of state.

Hari Raghavan, who with his wife, Mitali Gala, was the subject of the investigation by the California Franchise Tax Board, said he and Gala moved from California to Florida in 2021. They tried to sell the home they owned in California when they moved, but weren’t able to do so immediately, Raghavan told The Center Square.

“That spilled into 2022, but it was by no definition a primary residence anymore," Raghavan said about the California home. "We moved to Florida to establish residency in 2021.”

If the FTB and Rob Bonta try to pursue this after the couple provide proof they are not California residents, they may end up creating precedents they'll wish they had not.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Massachusetts and New Hampshire have had their tax spats over the years.

Back in the 1970s, Mass sent state troopers to NH to surveil Massachusetts residents purchasing items in NH to avoid Mass state sales tax.  The NH Governor had the Mass state troopers arrested because they were outside their jurisdiction.

Under Mass state law, if a Mass resident purchases something in NH, they are supposed to still pay Mass sales tax to the Mass Dept of Revenue.

Judges have ruled that Mass authorities have no police powers in NH, but, that Mass residents were still responsible for self-reporting the Mass sales tax to the Mass State Dept of Revenue (wink, wink, nod, nod).

Revenue-covetous states will enact an "exit tax" to squeeze every last dime of revenue out of people leaving their states.

Some suburban subway stations outside Boston use to have "exit fares".  Basically, if the station was more than X miles outside Boston, the MBTA would collect "exit fares" to pay for the extra distance trains had to travel to reach those stations.

Never underestimate Liberal Dem States' ability to get creative with "Revenue Enhancement".

My avatar is an actual bumper sticker from the 1970s/early 1980s.

[Free Vulcan]

California seeks taxes from family who moved to Florida

https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_fd93e155-cfde-4f3c-b33d-a22a084ec19f.html

If the FTB and Rob Bonta try to pursue this after the couple provide proof they are not California residents, they may end up creating precedents they'll wish they had not.

Tend to agree. They are trying to make it up as they go.

[dfwgator]

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

[MeganC]

 

[Kamaji]

A lot of states do residency audits.  They can be a real PiTA, particularly if one does not keep a lot of receipts or other documents. 

[cato potatoe]

Think of it as a final invoice for the excellent services provided by the state of California.  In a separate article it mentioned their Oakland neighbors were generous enough to inspect their property while they were busy at work.  That has to count for something.

[Smokin Joe]

What? You sold your house instead of collected the fire insurance? How dare you???!

Pay us, of the State will kidnap you and drag you back!

[Kamaji]

What? You sold your house instead of collected the fire insurance? How dare you???!

Pay us, of the State will kidnap you and drag you back!

Well, the gain on the sale of the house itself would be California source income and so taxable by CA regardless of where they actually resided. 

The bigger issue is CA trying to claim that they are still “residents” of CA and so subject to CA state income tax on their worldwide income. 

It is, in fact, possible to be a tax resident of two states simultaneously, depending on how each state defines the term “resident” under local law.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not enough facts in article to draw any conclusions.

It is typical to perform audits of state income taxes, and this may be all there is to this.

The inference in the article is that the state is trying to retroactively impose taxes, which may not be what is happening.

[MeganC]

My family LEFT California in 2010 and moved to Wyoming. They passed a law* that was going to require us to sell all of our paid off construction equipment and buy NEW construction equipment so we left and took everything with us except the employees.

In 2011 my husband started working making pads for drilling equipment in the Bakken. He made buckets of money.

In 2013 two armed California Franchise Tax Board agents showed up at our home near Cody demanding that we prove we live in Wyoming. Think about that. They also had an extortionate tax bill they wanted us to pay.

Short version of the long story is the Park County Sheriff's Department took a dim view of these people and told them in no uncertain terms to leave and never come back.

Conclusion: California is an organized crime cartel pretending to be a government.

* AB32 (2006)

[DefiantMassRINO]

Liberal Dems will go to any length, legal or illegal, to confiscate more wealth ... for the children.

Also, Dems want California Franchise Tax Board horror stories to make people falsely believe that moving out of California is an option.

I wonder if declaring Federal Bankruptcy protection would jam the gears as any, and all, creditors must appear before the Bankruptcy Court to claim right to alleged uncollected debts.  Federal Bankruptcy law would trump California state tax law.

[Kamaji]

My family LEFT California in 2010 and moved to Wyoming. They passed a law* that was going to require us to sell all of our paid off construction equipment and buy NEW construction equipment so we left and took everything with us except the employees.

In 2011 my husband started working making pads for drilling equipment in the Bakken. He made buckets of money.

In 2013 two armed California Franchise Tax Board agents showed up at our home near Cody demanding that we prove we live in Wyoming. Think about that. They also had an extortionate tax bill they wanted us to pay.

Short version of the long story is the Park County Sheriff's Department took a dim view of these people and told them in no uncertain terms to leave and never come back.

Conclusion: California is an organized crime cartel pretending to be a government.

* AB32 (2006)

Residency audits can be painful.  It’s particularly a problem in CA because the state primarily defines residency as domicile.  That unfortunately gives a lot of wiggle room to both sides, which is one reason why they’re so aggressive.  Other, saner, states mainly use a day-count as a test for residency. 

[catfish1957]

Thank goodness seek and acquire are totally differently defined verbs.

Pound sand and crumble away California.

[libertybele]

My family LEFT California in 2010 and moved to Wyoming. They passed a law* that was going to require us to sell all of our paid off construction equipment and buy NEW construction equipment so we left and took everything with us except the employees.

In 2011 my husband started working making pads for drilling equipment in the Bakken. He made buckets of money.

In 2013 two armed California Franchise Tax Board agents showed up at our home near Cody demanding that we prove we live in Wyoming. Think about that. They also had an extortionate tax bill they wanted us to pay.

Short version of the long story is the Park County Sheriff's Department took a dim view of these people and told them in no uncertain terms to leave and never come back.

Conclusion: California is an organized crime cartel pretending to be a government.

* AB32 (2006)

Wise, wise move. I'd leave CA to live in WY any day of the week.  There's just no comparison, except perhaps good v. evil.

[roamer_1]

Some suburban subway stations outside Boston use to have "exit fares".  Basically, if the station was more than X miles outside Boston, the MBTA would collect "exit fares" to pay for the extra distance trains had to travel to reach those stations.

Never underestimate Liberal Dem States' ability to get creative with "Revenue Enhancement".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbtkL5_f6-4&list=RDMbtkL5_f6-4&start_radio=1

[MeganC]

Residency audits can be painful. 

CA FTB has no jurisdiction sending armed agents into other states to do these strong arm collection tactics.

Ever.

[Kamaji]

CA FTB has no jurisdiction sending armed agents into other states to do these strong arm collection tactics.

Ever.

You would be surprised what they do have.  And since you weren’t arrested, they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit, which they are entitled to do, to speak with you.

Just because you personally hate something doesn’t make that something wrong.

[libertybele]

You would be surprised what they do have.  And since you weren’t arrested, they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit, which they are entitled to do, to speak with you.

Just because you personally hate something doesn’t make that something wrong.

So .... they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit all the way from CA to WY??? Sounds rather drastic to me as most agencies send a letter.  A personal visit usually indicates that they want your hide or at the very least are trying to intimidate.

[Kamaji]

So .... they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit all the way from CA to WY??? Sounds rather drastic to me as most agencies send a letter.  A personal visit usually indicates that they want your hide or at the very least are trying to intimidate.

Whatever.  You do you. 

[Kamaji]

An article on the subject:  When state auditors head out of state

[Hoodat]

The key question here is whether they took any action regarding their homestead exemption.  If they moved to Florida in 2021 yet continued to claim the exemption in 2022 going forward, then the State has cause to pursue them.  But if they forfeited the exemption in 2022, then the State has no case.  Likewise, are they still driving around with California plates on their vehicles?  Or are they now registered in Florida?  And let's not forget those SunPass receipts.

The documents, sent on Jan. 6, 2026, asked for receipts, invoices, canceled checks and other documentation showing that the family moved from California to Florida nearly four years ago. The California Franchise Tax Board, which sent the letter, also asked the family for a “narrative of the circumstances” surrounding the family’s move out of state.

Everyone has a right against self-incrimination.  In other words, remain silent.  Do not feel compelled to provide evidence to the State of California which they clearly do not have.  The burden of proof is on them, not you.  It isn't your job to prove that you aren't a resident.  It's their job to prove that you are.

[Kamaji]

The key question here is whether they took any action regarding their homestead exemption.  If they moved to Florida in 2021 yet continued to claim the exemption in 2022 going forward, then the State has cause to pursue them.  But if they forfeited the exemption in 2022, then the State has no case.  Likewise, are they still driving around with California plates on their vehicles?  Or are they now registered in Florida?  And let's not forget those SunPass receipts.


Everyone has a right against self-incrimination.  In other words, remain silent.  Do not feel compelled to provide evidence to the State of California which they clearly do not have.  The burden of proof is on them, not you.  It isn't your job to prove that you aren't a resident.  It's their job to prove that you are.

Not necessarily.  If the information is not provided, then presumptions are applied.  One can always invoke the Fifth, but there are civil consequences to doing so.  You can also be required to produce books and records, and that compelled production is not in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

But hey, before you start flaming out:  You do you.

[roamer_1]

You would be surprised what they do have.  And since you weren’t arrested, they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit, which they are entitled to do, to speak with you.

Just because you personally hate something doesn’t make that something wrong.

That's right... They can subpoena you for appearance... If you don't show up, there will be a summary judgement that can, within 90 days, lock up all your banking, lien all your cars, and all but one of your properties, and crap out your credit, sending the bill (whatever they say you owe) out for collections.

They can totally crater you. I'd say, get a lawyer.

[MeganC]

You would be surprised what they do have.  And since you weren’t arrested, they were doing nothing more than making a personal visit, which they are entitled to do, to speak with you.

Just because you personally hate something doesn’t make that something wrong.

In 1776 you would have been on the British side.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Piss 'em off ... file for Federal Bankruptcy.  That will slow their roll.

[Kamaji]

In 1776 you would have been on the British side.

Sour grapes.  I’m not making a judgment, I’m describing the facts to you and the consequences of ignoring those facts - sort of the way Mr Petti ignored the facts and consequences of carrying a gun into a confrontation with law enforcement. 

But you don’t like the facts, so you insult me personally.

Oh well; you do you. 

[escapeefromtaxachusetts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbtkL5_f6-4&list=RDMbtkL5_f6-4&start_radio=1

Biggest rat I ever saw was in the Park Street Station.... Though it might have been one of the politicians being so close to the State House.

[Free Vulcan]

That's right... They can subpoena you for appearance... If you don't show up, there will be a summary judgement that can, within 90 days, lock up all your banking, lien all your cars, and all but one of your properties, and crap out your credit, sending the bill (whatever they say you owe) out for collections.

They can totally crater you. I'd say, get a lawyer.

And that's what they're really after with these visits. You are duly and officially alerted and informed of the situation, and if you just blow them off (cuz that kind of thing ticks people off)  they pick up some easy money.

[MeganC]

Sour grapes.  I’m not making a judgment, I’m describing the facts to you and the consequences of ignoring those facts - sort of the way Mr Petti ignored the facts and consequences of carrying a gun into a confrontation with law enforcement. 

But you don’t like the facts, so you insult me personally.

Oh well; you do you.

It was not an insult. Just an observation.

We had armed agents from out of state on our property demanding entry to our home to do something they would not disclose.

When the PCSD showed up the CA FTB were disarmed, they had their badges seized, and they were told to leave and never come back. Whatever authority they thought they had in Wyoming existed only in their minds and apparently yours.

[Free Vulcan]

When the PCSD showed up the CA FTB were disarmed, they had their badges seized, and they were told to leave and never come back. Whatever authority they thought they had in Wyoming existed only in their minds and apparently yours.

Glad the local PD played ball. They're lucky they didn't get shot, most would see them as criminals posing as cops trying to rob you.

Nothing sends me into a rage than officials going outside their jurisdiction.

[Kamaji]

It was not an insult. Just an observation.

We had armed agents from out of state on our property demanding entry to our home to do something they would not disclose.

When the PCSD showed up the CA FTB were disarmed, they had their badges seized, and they were told to leave and never come back. Whatever authority they thought they had in Wyoming existed only in their minds and apparently yours.

Yes, it was an insult.  But hey, you do you.  I’m used to it from you by now.

[Hoodat]

Not necessarily.  If the information is not provided, then presumptions are applied.  One can always invoke the Fifth, but there are civil consequences to doing so.

No such consequence here.  The State has nothing.  And the defendant cannot be compelled to provide their evidence for them.

You can also be required to produce books and records, and that compelled production is not in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Not the case here.  There's no California statute in play here.

Again, if the State of California has evidence that their residency remains in California (such as vehicle registrations or homestead exemptions), then they have a case.  Otherwise, they can have themselves a steaming cup of STFU.  Yet you seem to be arguing that any State such as Alaska can come hunt you down in the State where you reside and make the claim that you owe income taxes for years you did not reside in Alaska, and that you can be compelled to provide them with evidence that they can use to build a case against you.  That isn't the America I know.

[Kamaji]

No such consequence here.  The State has nothing.  And the defendant cannot be compelled to provide their evidence for them.


Not the case here.  There's no California statute in play here.

Again, if the State of California has evidence that their residency remains in California (such as vehicle registrations or homestead exemptions), then they have a case.  Otherwise, they can have themselves a steaming cup of STFU.  Yet you seem to be arguing that any State such as Alaska can come hunt you down in the State where you reside and make the claim that you owe income taxes for years you did not reside in Alaska, and that you can be compelled to provide them with evidence that they can use to build a case against you.  That isn't the America I know.

Nope.

 But hey, you do you.  Let me know if you ever need a referral to a good criminal defense attorney who handles tax matters.  They are sui generis.

[roamer_1]

Biggest rat I ever saw was in the Park Street Station.... Though it might have been one of the politicians being so close to the State House.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference.   

[roamer_1]

And that's what they're really after with these visits. You are duly and officially alerted and informed of the situation, and if you just blow them off (cuz that kind of thing ticks people off)  they pick up some easy money.

That's right. They won't come at you with the hut-hut boys, so you can die in some glorious remake of Ruby Ridge... No, they will go after you with the debt collection system, which exists across all states, for sure, and may cross some national borders (I don't know that). Once the judgement is in arrears, the rest is automatic - They will strip you of your treasure, And your liberty (by way of the bad credit system) and do it legally.

Now, that ain't to say that another judge might turn all that around. But it is to say that a lawyer in the front of it, before the fact, is gonna be cheaper than the lawyer after that monkey-knot has formed. Way cheaper.

If they come knocking, or you get served, those are GIANT flags on the play. Lawyer up, right now.

[MeganC]

Yes, it was an insult.  But hey, you do you.  I’m used to it from you by now.

You should not be so eager to surrender your liberty just because some thug with a badge and a gun tells you to.

[libertybele]

Whatever.  You do you. 

You didn't answer the question.  Whatever.  You do you.   

[Kamaji]

You should not be so eager to surrender your liberty just because some thug with a badge and a gun tells you to.

Again with the personal insults. Geez. 

[Kamaji]

You didn't answer the question.  Whatever.  You do you.   

(a) I answered the question at the start, (b) the answer was neither appreciated nor constructively responded to, so (c) I don’t really GAF.

There’s a whole set of doctrines and principles about how the Fifth Amendment interacts with the taxing power, both at thr federal level and at the state level (via the 14th), and there are some pretty decent discussions of that interaction available online - for free for anyone who bothers to use Dr. google - so no, I’m not going to fight the fight of trying to drag the horse to water.  I pointed out where the water is, and if the horse doesn’t want to drink, tough shit. 

The bottom line is this: you can be forced to provide a whole slew of tax records, and the fifth won’t stop that, and anyone who says otherwise is either an ignoramus, or is trying to get you into trouble. 

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/Milajoy/status/2017330429179900223

[MeganC]

Again with the personal insults. Geez.

Which is it then?

Do you submit to armed government agents when they have no jurisdiction?

Or do you assert your rights?

[Kamaji]

Which is it then?

Do you submit to armed government agents when they have no jurisdiction?

Or do you assert your rights?

Why don't you start by understanding what your rights are - and what obligations you have - before you start making asinine claims.

Oh, wait, that would make you a "second class citizen".

You do you, child.

[MeganC]

Why don't you start by understanding what your rights are - and what obligations you have - before you start making asinine claims.

Oh, wait, that would make you a "second class citizen".

You do you, child.

I related our experience and you weighed in with your novel opinion. You took your chances.

[Hoodat]

(a) I answered the question at the start, (b) the answer was neither appreciated nor constructively responded to, so (c) I don’t really GAF.

Answered here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3267285#msg3267285

Constructively responded to here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3268230#msg3268230

Your smarmy follow-up here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3268230#msg3268230

The bottom line is this: you can be forced to provide a whole slew of tax records, and the fifth won’t stop that.

You could not possibly be more wrong here.  Forced?  The government can't force me to do jack.  Especially when it comes to incriminating myself.  Now there may be penalties for non-compliance, similar to refusing to submit to a breathalyzer when suspected of DUI.  But one cannot be forced to take a breathalyzer test.

In the case here, the State of California cannot force the Florida residents to submit a damn thing.  If the Florida couple does not comply, then California can try to prosecute with what they have.  But since they have already revealed that they do not have enough to prosecute (hence the fishing expedition), the best thing this Florida couple can do is to refuse to comply.  Let California take them to court.  Let California lose.  And then let California then pay all their legal defense fees for frivolous action.

[Kamaji]

Answered here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3267285#msg3267285

Constructively responded to here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3268230#msg3268230

Your smarmy follow-up here:  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=576971.msg3268230#msg3268230


You could not possibly be more wrong here.  Forced?  The government can't force me to do jack.  Especially when it comes to incriminating myself.  Now there may be penalties for non-compliance, similar to refusing to submit to a breathalyzer when suspected of DUI.  But one cannot be forced to take a breathalyzer test.

In the case here, the State of California cannot force the Florida residents to submit a damn thing.  If the Florida couple does not comply, then California can try to prosecute with what they have.  But since they have already revealed that they do not have enough to prosecute (hence the fishing expedition), the best thing this Florida couple can do is to refuse to comply.  Let California take them to court.  Let California lose.  And then let California then pay all their legal defense fees for frivolous action.

Bullshit.  The government can force you to do plenty.  And they can certainly presume continued residence - CA bases it on domicile - if the taxpayer does not come forward with evidence that he has changed his domicile, and thus his residence.

It is hornbook law that a person's domicile remains the same until and unless he takes sufficient steps to change that domicile.  If one was previously domiciled in CA, CA can apply a presumption that domicile continues until and unless the person in question proves otherwise.

What will happen as a practical matter is that the state will assess tax on the basis of continued domicile, will eventually reduce that assessment to a judgment, will then domesticate that judgment in the state where the taxpayer's assets can be found, and then seek to enforce that domesticated judgment against those assets.

If the taxpayer wants to stop this roller coaster, the taxpayer will have to come forward with proof that he was no longer a domiciliary of CA at the relevant point in time.  Waiting until an assessment has been reduced to judgment, and that judgment has been domesticated in the state where one's valuable assets are located is a very stupid, expensive point at which to stand one's ground.

Instead, those who are smart, those who understand both their actual rights and their actual responsibilities, will provide the requested proof of change of domicile at the first instance that CA raises the question.

But then, it's becoming rather apparent that brains are not the strong point on this thread.

[catfish1957]

Bullshit.  The government can force you to do plenty.  And they can certainly presume continued residence - CA bases it on domicile - if the taxpayer does not come forward with evidence that he has changed his domicile, and thus his residence.

It is hornbook law that a person's domicile remains the same until and unless he takes sufficient steps to change that domicile.  If one was previously domiciled in CA, CA can apply a presumption that domicile continues until and unless the person in question proves otherwise.

What will happen as a practical matter is that the state will assess tax on the basis of continued domicile, will eventually reduce that assessment to a judgment, will then domesticate that judgment in the state where the taxpayer's assets can be found, and then seek to enforce that domesticated judgment against those assets.

If the taxpayer wants to stop this roller coaster, the taxpayer will have to come forward with proof that he was no longer a domiciliary of CA at the relevant point in time.  Waiting until an assessment has been reduced to judgment, and that judgment has been domesticated in the state where one's valuable assets are located is a very stupid, expensive point at which to stand one's ground.

Instead, those who are smart, those who understand both their actual rights and their actual responsibilities, will provide the requested proof of change of domicile at the first instance that CA raises the question.

But then, it's becoming rather apparent that brains are not the strong point on this thread.

Outside an MOU with IRS,  I am not seeing how CA can seize property outside of placing a lein on fleeing resident's destination house. And in that case, I hope the resident woud create a Trust or other instrument owenership to even bypass those processes.

 I think 10A would trump any whacko's governor's crazy tantrums. Addendum 1:  That is unless fleeing resident was stupid enough to leave any assets in that state they are fleeing.  Bottom line:  When you make the move....   do it stealthly and completely.

[Kamaji]

Outside an MOU with IRS,  I am not seeing how CA can seize property outside of placing a lein on fleeing resident's destination house. And in that case, I hope the resident woud create a Trust or other instrument owenership to even bypass those processes.

 I think 10A would trump any whacko's governor's crazy tantrums. Addendum 1:  That is unless fleeing resident was stupid enough to leave any assets in that state they are fleeing.  Bottom line:  When you make the move....   do it stealthly and completely.

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.

[Hoodat]

Bullshit.  The government can force you to do plenty.

Such as?

And they can certainly presume continued residence - CA bases it on domicile - if the taxpayer does not come forward with evidence that he has changed his domicile, and thus his residence.

So in order to prove their presumption of continued California residency, the State of California reached out to this couple at their Florida residence.  Anyone else see the irony here?

It is hornbook law that a person's domicile remains the same until and unless he takes sufficient steps to change that domicile.  If one was previously domiciled in CA, CA can apply a presumption that domicile continues until and unless the person in question proves otherwise.

No one is questioning that.  But this couple cannot be forced to comply.  California can then take them to court for judgment.  So the question still remains, what evidence does California already have.

What will happen as a practical matter is that the state will assess tax on the basis of continued domicile, will eventually reduce that assessment to a judgment, will then domesticate that judgment in the state where the taxpayer's assets can be found, and then seek to enforce that domesticated judgment against those assets.

If the taxpayer wants to stop this roller coaster, the taxpayer will have to come forward with proof that he was no longer a domiciliary of CA at the relevant point in time.  Waiting until an assessment has been reduced to judgment, and that judgment has been domesticated in the state where one's valuable assets are located is a very stupid, expensive point at which to stand one's ground.

Yet the couple has that option.  They cannot be forced to comply with the evidentiary request.  Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.  Who knows.  Maybe they cancelled their homestead exemption.  Maybe they retracted their voting registration.  Maybe they bought property in Florida and are claiming exemption there.  Maybe they now have jobs in Florida and are earning income there.  Maybe they now have Florida driver's licenses along with SunPass cards that register their toll activity throughout the year.

But none of that is what the State of California is asking for.  Instead, California wants to see their moving receipts along with a compete inventory of everything they moved.  None of that defines or determines residency.  They could have left everything they owned in California.  They could have sold it all with the house.  They could have rented it out as completely furnished.  Or they could have taken everything they own and burned it in their back yard.

California's request is a complete overreach and should be ignored.  I know I sure would.

[Kamaji]

Such as?


So in order to prove their presumption of continued California residency, the State of California reached out to this couple at their Florida residence.  Anyone else see the irony here?


No one is questioning that.  But this couple cannot be forced to comply.  California can then take them to court for judgment.  So the question still remains, what evidence does California already have.


Yet the couple has that option.  They cannot be forced to comply with the evidentiary request.  Not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.  Who knows.  Maybe they cancelled their homestead exemption.  Maybe they retracted their voting registration.  Maybe they bought property in Florida and are claiming exemption there.  Maybe they now have jobs in Florida and are earning income there.  Maybe they now have Florida driver's licenses along with SunPass cards that register their toll activity throughout the year.

But none of that is what the State of California is asking for.  Instead, California wants to see their moving receipts along with a compete inventory of everything they moved.  None of that defines or determines residency.  They could have left everything they owned in California.  They could have sold it all with the house.  They could have rented it out as completely furnished.  Or they could have taken everything they own and burned it in their back yard.

California's request is a complete overreach and should be ignored.  I know I sure would.

Yes, they can be forced to comply with the evidentiary request.  They either respond, or they suffer a tax assessment that will be rendered to a judgment, which will be domesticated and enforced against them in Florida against their property in Florida.

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