Posted on 01/05/2023 9:32:15 AM PST by grundle
In the Matter of Blair S. Bindley, OTA Case No. 18032402 (May 30, 2019), a sole proprietor performed all of his services outside of California, but some of his customers were in California. Is that enough for the poor guy to attract California tax liability? The California taxing authorities said he was operating a "unitary" business. Therefore, his tiny business was subject to California's apportionment rules. The FTB would not budge, so Mr. Bindley went over their head to the state’s Office of Tax Appeals (OTA), but it agreed with the FTB. This case has precedential effect, so it is clear that the Golden State can go after other non-Californians too, and it’s happening. Exactly what was poor Mr. Bindley’s tax offense in California? He is a self-employed screenplay writer living in Arizona. He performed services for a few companies headquartered and registered in California. The California Franchise Tax Board matched income records showing that he collected $40,000 of income from California companies. Not surprisingly, Bindley did not file a California tax return.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Filthy New York revenuers harassed and audited El Rushbo the rest of his life after he escaped. Probably after his wife now.
“The Office of Tax Appeals agreed with the Franchise Tax Board.”
-fJRoberts-
Yeah. It might affect their social credit score too.
Personally, I don't care too much about a credit score since I don't borrow money. It used to matter to me since insurers used to base their fees partially on credit score, but since my state foolishly passed a law that forbids that, so what.
To begin with, if California wants more revenue, it can lead all the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional, Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Next, without knowing more about this case, the Supreme Court needs to look at this case for the following reasons imo.
Not only does Blair S. Bindley not have a vote with how California taxes are spent, but the 11th Amendment prohibits Bindley from suing 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."
So the problem is taxation without representation imo, actually a common problem these days.
How about shareholders in California-based company, like AAPL? Are we next?
Newsome wishes they all could be California serfs.
The company I work for we have to enter the location where we performed the work. Even working from home.
They came after me three years after I left.
It was easier to send them $400 and be done with them
B
IL government doesn’t follow the law as it hunts for tax revenue at any cost.
Consequently, the law isn’t a safe haven and offers no protection.
I have an accounting practice here in Tucson. Last year I did an Estate return for a client that had never lived in California but their kid, who was the Estate representative, lived in CA and had mail delivered to him there. The FTB sent the estate a letter demanding CA tax. When I wrote back and explained that the ONLY reason I could think of that CA showed up anywhere in the whole process was the receipt of mail by the representative the situation was resolved in the Estate’s favor. Getting it resolved required that extra step and the ONLY reason I can think of for CA getting involved was the mailing address which, frankly, is rather concerning because how would CA know that person X, living in CA, received mail for person B, living in Arizona?
ZEY HAVE ZERE VAYS!...........................
"We are programmed to receive You can check out any time you like But you can never leave"
I hear New York is just as bad...............
They hounded Rush Limbaugh for years after he left NYC.
Years ago, before I fled California, I used to purchase cigarettes from an Indian run entity out of state. California tried to tax my purchase. I found methods to get around them.
Probably still are!...................
Rush refused to travel to NY because they argued he was working & subject to taxation.
Back in the early 70’s I was in the Navy having enlisted in Pennsylvania. My folks moved to Wisconsin and I changed their address in my Navy records. I never even visited Wisconsin. After tax filing season I got a letter from Wisconsin demanding I pay them a couple hundred bucks for income tax since my parents lived there. I went to base legal who told me to throw the letter in the trash - which I did. Wisconsin sued, and won a default judgement, then tried to take part of my pay. Again legal got involved, sent a couple letters and the whole affair went away. My folks moved back to PA after about a year so their address changed again. To this day I have not been in Wisconsin!
“ Long story short here is two years after we left California we had two armed Franchise Tax Board officers come to the ranch here in Wyoming to try to collect taxes. The Park County Sheriff’s Department came out, seized their guns and badges, and sent them back to California.”
Feel good story of the day right there!
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.