LOS ANGELES – Ditching the Golden State for another U.S. state? You’re not alone. 

A study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau revealed tens of thousands of Californians sought life elsewhere. Some reasons why people are leaving California include: high cost of living, lack of job opportunities, increasing tax burdens, and regulations. 

Overall, 75,423 Californians left in 2023. Many residents are moving to other parts of the country for better opportunities, cheaper homes, and different laws.

But before you pack your bags and set your sights on a new beginning, don’t forget there are measures you need to take – otherwise, you’ll still have to pay those notorious California taxes. 

SUGGESTED: More insurance companies leaving California

California has nine state income tax rates, ranging from 1% to 12.3%. Your tax rate and tax bracket depend on your taxable income and filing status.

California’s Franchise Tax Board has the ability to conduct residency audits and is responsible for monitoring the fine line between residents and non-residents. The FTB has the right to investigate how and when you left. 

When it comes to California state taxes, there are three residency statuses: resident, part-year resident and nonresident. The FTB determines what portion of your income the state will tax. According to state law, you are presumed to be a California resident if you are in California for more than nine months.  

SUGGESTED: Here’s how many people moved out of California in 2023

The IRS has the ability to audit 3 or 6 years, but in California – that time frame expands to essentially, forever.

California uses several factors to determine your residency, like the amount of time you spent in the Golden State versus outside. Other factors the FTB considers include:

• The location of the taxpayer’s spouse and children;
• The location of the taxpayer’s principal residence;
• Where the taxpayer was issued a driver’s license;
• Where the taxpayer’s vehicles are registered;
• Where the taxpayer maintains professional licenses;
• Where the taxpayer is registered to vote;
• The locations of banks where the taxpayer maintains accounts;
• The locations of the taxpayer’s doctors, dentists, accountants and attorneys;
• The locations of church, temple or mosque, professional associations, and social and country clubs of which the taxpayer is a member;
• The locations of the taxpayer’s real property and investments;
• The permanence of the taxpayer’s work assignments in California; and
• The location of the taxpayer’s social ties. FTB Pub. 1031, Guidelines for Determining Resident Status (2010).

But the biggest factor of all, it seems, is your physical presence. Again, California presumes you are a resident if you spend more than 9 months in the state. 

If you spend 6 months or less, you may qualify as a “seasonal visitor,” but that’s only if you don’t work while you are in the state, and meet other criteria.

SUGGESTED: People leaving California moving here in record numbers, data shows

Even part-year residents are still taxed. You pay tax on “all worldwide income received while you are a California resident” and “income from California sources while you were a nonresident,” according to the FTB.

In order to avoid paying taxes, you must prove you have left California – but that means more than just buying a home in another state. You must prove you have completely severed your ties to the Golden State and that you have permanent connections to another state. 

And even if you do that, you may still owe taxes based on other factors – for example, if your spouse still lives in California, expect to pay up as community property rules in California treat half your income as half of your spouse’s.

SUGGESTED: More Americans are fleeing the country and moving to Europe

If you’re a California resident but looking to chuck that and settle elsewhere, proceed with care and remember to take precautions. For example – getting a new state driver’s license and surrendering your old California one, moving and registering your car in your new state, and registering to vote in your new state while canceling your old California voter registration. You can learn more on the FTB’s website.

A study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates the top 5 states former Californians moved to were Texas, Arizona, Florida, Washington and Nevada. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming all do not impose state income taxes.

Amid continued debate on California high school math education, an opposing complaint was filed with the University, in response to concerns raised about Jo Boaler’s contributions to a new math framework.

Duane Habecker, California Mathematics Council central section president, filed a complaint with the Office of the Provost against Stanford math professor Brian Conrad. The complaint, which was filed in late April, criticizes Conrad’s “reckless disregard for academic integrity and the safety of fellow Stanford professor, Dr. Jo Boaler,” according to documents obtained by The Daily.

Conrad is one of a number of public critics of the recently revised California Math Framework (CMF), the document that advises K-12 educators in California, which math education professor Jo Boaler helped to write. Especially drawing controversy, Boaler advocates for offering data science as an alternative Algebra II in high school math requirements — an effort she argues would make high school math more equitable. 

Critics like Conrad say that this switch would leave high school students unprepared for college-level math.

In 2023, when the CMF was in the editing process, Conrad created a website to publish comments and concerns with the CMF. The recent complaint delves into some concerns raised by critics on Boaler’s research.

Conrad wrote in an email to The Daily that he was not aware about the complaint lodged against him nor the University’s response. In response to the complaint, he wrote, “Anyone who looks at what I have written or said on these matters can see that I never singled out any specific CMF author, contrary to what is claimed.”

The complaint follows an anonymous complaint filed in March against Boaler, accusing her of citation misrepresentation in both her individual work and her work in helping revise the CMF. According to Habecker, it stems from criticism that moves beyond the research to personal attacks.

The complaint raises twelve examples of Conrad’s critiques paired with Habecker’s response countering these critiques. Habecker wrote that Conrad “has gone beyond critiquing the research and ventured into stochastic terrorism through indirect and vague attacks on Professor Jo Boaler’s work, which has led the public to myopically targeting Dr. Boaler rather than the entire CMF writing team.”

Boaler has received threats to herself and her family due to her involvement in the CMF, she wrote on her Stanford profile.

Neither complaint will receive a formal University investigation. 

“We received this information and believe this matter is one properly resolved through scholarly debate rather than through a formal university process,” wrote University spokesperson Dee Mostofi. “The university does not take a position in these matters.”

The first anonymous complaint against Boaler inspired Habecker to file his own complaint, Habecker said, helping him realize that it was a tool he could use to voice his concerns about the lack of scholarly debate he saw in both the anonymous complaint and Conrad’s public criticisms with the CMF. 

The fact that the original complaint was anonymous “runs against the whole point of conversation and discourse and disagreeing,” Habecker said. “Math is a wonderful topic to disagree about and have real, authentic, meaningful conversations.”

He said that he thinks the CMF is one of the best resources for high school math teachers, and Conrad is “undermining people’s faith in the CMF.”

Habecker’s complaint takes issue not only with Conrad’s website, but also with Conrad’s recent testimony at a California senate hearing about a “math excellence package” that would add six members to the California State Board of Education’s Instructional Quality Commission.

Disagreeing with Habecker’s characterization, Conrad countered that his testimony was not an effort to discredit the math framework. This claim “is contradicted by the fact that I never mentioned the CMF,” Conrad wrote. 

Boaler has continued her support for the CMF, despite its critics. 

“It is my understanding that [Habecker’s] complaint has been filed in defense of everyone who worked on all stages of the CMF, the statutory process and the K-12 educators and students who will be impacted,” she wrote in an email to The Daily. “Insofar as [Habecker’s] submission might apply to my situation, I will be grateful if his viewpoint is considered.”

Published: May 06, 2024