Posted on 02/01/2021 8:25:19 AM PST by NohSpinZone
Ask the NFL players. They know all about this, as do company execs who travel for business meetings.
California has been going after employees working out of state and out of the US for over 40 years.
I had to prove to CA that I was living out of state and paying OR taxes every year that I worked for a CA company.
I heard one story of a Texan working for a CA company that annually ignored CA’s claims. State of CA put a lien on his property in TX.
See my post #22
One of my biggest clients is legally incorporated in Delaware but has its headquarters office in New Jersey. They pay New Jersey taxes for all of their operations in the state.
The purpose of establishing a headquarters in a low-tax state is to avoid paying corporate taxes on earnings from OTHER states. In the DE-NJ example I cited, the company may earn 60% of its revenue in New Jersey, but since it is legally domiciled in Delaware it doesn't have to pay New Jersey taxes on the other 40%.
Are you suggesting that people who live in New Hampshire and work in Massachusetts should be allowed to vote in BOTH places?
How about this? The many companies that are incorporated in Delaware pay their shareholders dividends. Those shareholders are obliged to pay Delaware state income taxes on the dividends?
Or maybe New York state and New York City income taxes, whenever the shareowners realize a capital gain from trades of companies listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ?
There may be excellent reasons for keeping a headquarters in New Jersey.
There are many who keep an HQ in a high tax state because of inertia.
The NRA is an example.
who got out but still work for CA companies.
Report today that the CEOs of Exxon and Chevron discussed merger. Wonder if with that comes a move of the Chevron HQ from Ca to Texas.
Some years ago I worked as a W2 employee for a California company. The company did state withholding. When I left that company, I got letters saying that I hadn’t filed a return...and the notice went to my Nevada address. So I wrote a letter: “Where do I vote”? I got refund checks on the withheld monies from California. Quite a surprise.
It would be nonsensical if those weren't one of the terms of the merger, for sure.
Getting the state of California to give you back money you already paid them isn’t a surprise, it’s a veritable miracle.
Rule of thumb from someone who’s done this many times: you pay the higher of the two tax rates. There’s no getting around it.
I agree. California’s long tax arm for example, is taxation without representation imo.
In fact, if you are a resident of another state being taxed by California for example, then to my understanding, the 11th Amendment won’t let you sue California.
"11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Or maybe involuntary California taxpayers could put California, along unconstitutional federal taxes by Democrats and RINOs, in their places with prohibited involuntary servitude?
"13th Amendment, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States [emphases added], or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Or does the 11th Amendment need to be repealed?
Corrections, insights welcome.
You don’t even have to do that. There are payroll companies that will handle the employee compensation package start to finish. Client-company pays them, they pay your employee.
Had a deal like that when I worked briefly for a casino gaming company.
I had a problem like this. Worked for an Oklahoma-based company while living and remotely working from Pennsylvania. 6 weeks after I started they shifted my wages to a payroll service. It looked like I changed jobs. When they laid me off 5 months later Pennsylvania denied my unemployment t claim. I appealed, explained the situation and won.
This particular company does a lot of work for New Jersey clients, and needs to have professionals on staff who are licensed in New Jersey (engineers, architects, etc.).
That's just snide. Perhaps I should site a different body part in every jurisdiction that makes a claim of taxation against me. Surely that would work, right? I'm challenging the premise of the existing regime, which I mean to debate as a moral question, not a legal one, and your response is just effectively "suck it"...
Perhaps the tax should be enforced against the entity that exists in the jurisdiction, instead of against those who have no representation. Governments have obviously noticed it's far easier to tax someone who can never have representation.
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that fees and taxes automatically disclose a right to representation, heheh.
taxation without representation..... generally attributed to James Otis about 1761, that reflected the resentment of American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no representatives and became an anti-British slogan before the American Revolution; in full, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
So what is to stop the state you work ‘in’ raising taxes only for those living out of state? You know the local voters would vote for such a plan.
California will have good luck putting liens on any of my Overseas properties. Don’t think the FTB has rights in the Philippines (especially for joint-ownership of property, where pure foreign ownership is illegal)
Quick Chief Justice Roberts. Save the reputation of the Supreme Court once again by declining to hear the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.