There’s a sad excuse for a person who supports the Arabs and their military wing Hamas. And yes those folks live in Gaza and the West Bank. Well a supporter of theirs is up for a judicial position.
Several Democrats (Mastro and Manchin) will not support the nomination since no Republicans will support this person. This person sat on the board of an organization (Center for Security, Race, and Rights at Rutgers) that “produced several extremist programs, featured speakers with ties to known terrorist organizations, and sponsored lectures brazenly touting antisemitic themes,” National Review said.
How can this be? Voter fraud in Wisconsin. I see and hear about stupid people all the time. But this one takes the cake. Kimberly Zapata, the deputy director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, was fired for committing election fraud.
Rep. Brandtjen received three authentic military ballots to her home addressed to “Holly,” a woman who has never lived there.
Zapata claimed that she was trying to prove how easy it was to commit voter fraud. But yet her boss who believes her fired her. Well the courts didn’t believe her.
A Milwaukee County jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Kimberly Zapata – and found Zapata guilty on all counts against her.
Zapata is the fired Milwaukee Election Commission deputy director accused of illegally requesting military ballots and sending them to the home of State Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls).
Zapata did not testify in her own defense. She was charged with election fraud. Prosecutors say in 2022, she ordered military ballots using names she made up. Zapata told investigators she was trying to prove there is fraud in our election system. She said she never intended the ballots to be processed.
One Law. One Page. Part 9. No new laws, executive orders, etc., during the last nine months of an election year. Except for a national emergency. Seems like an outgoing administration tends to make all these crazy laws, executive orders, and the list goes on.
Look at the EPA, Homeland Security, DOJ, ETC. All are rushing to get crazy laws and policies passed. My law would stop the last minute rush. Below is a perfect example.
The Biden administration on Wednesday published a rule that’s expected to drive a significant shift from gas-powered to electric vehicle (EV) sales.
Biden has mentioned several other new executive orders he has planned over the next few months. If an emergency arises, then any new laws would be allowed.
However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?
Yep! Thanks to the Californiaexit tax legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments in real estate or business operations, you could still be treated like a Californian on your next tax return!
Join us as we walk you through the California wealth and exit tax questions, such as “what is the exit tax in california,” how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CA wealth tax proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.
So, what is the Californiaexit tax? The Californiaexit tax explained:
The Californiaexit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.
It forms part of the larger Californiawealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.
Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.
How much is the Californiaexit tax?
The amount of the Californiaexit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where it’s located—within CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a married taxpayer files a separate return to their spouse.
The one caveat is that there is no California exit tax on real estate (but if the real estate is within state lines, it would still be taxed under California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591).
Who has to pay Californiaexit tax?
The exit tax applies to both businesses and individuals who leave California. This includes businesses that move their operations out of state as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that the exit tax only applies if you’re moving to another state, not within California.
Why was the Californiaexit tax of 2020 created?
The exit tax is intended to recoup some of the money that California has invested in these businesses and individuals.
For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, the exit tax ensures that they will still contribute some money to California‘s economy even after they leave.
The primary reason for the enactment of the exit tax was to close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on their capital gains.
Under federal law, capital gains are only taxed when they are realized. This means that if someone buys a stock for $1,000 and it goes up to $10,000, they don’t have to pay taxes on that $9,000 until they sell the stock.
If that person lived in California and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 in capital gains.
To close this loophole, the Golden State enacted the California wealth and exit tax. Now, anyone who leaves the state is required to pay taxes on their unrealized capital gains.
It’s been criticized by many people, who argue that it is unfair and punitive. They point out that many people who are leaving California are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.
By California taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.
What’s more, they argue that the exit tax will make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feet financially once they’re in their new location.
The CaliforniaWealth Tax Proposal in a Nutshell
California is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the state’s ability to tax non-residents, even if they sever their connections with the state.
The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called the Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088), which is, effectively, the Californiawealth tax proposal.
AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a Californiawealth tax for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state and who make an annual income greater than $30 million.
However, before we delve into the loopholes and exceptions to this ambitious, but potentially consequential, new bill, we must first understand how California’s tax code could impact you, even as a non-resident.
Whether you are a landowner or an entrepreneur with connections to the state, understanding the tax implications is crucial to mitigating the possibility of having to pay some pretty significant taxes.
Starting point: Residency & the Californiaexit tax proposal 2020
First, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements for California citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in a California residency audit.
Factors that affect its determination include:
your largest residential property’s location
Residence of your spouse and children
School districts where your children attend
Whether your account statements from your credit cards show your residence in California
Exemptions you may claim as a homeowner in California
Approximately how many days you spend in California each year
Whether your California residence is listed on a federal and local tax return
Where you vote
Where your vehicles are registered
Looking at these factors, you might think that removing yourself physically from the state would result in them no longer applying and saving you a fair amount of money.
There is some truth to this assumption, as the Franchise Tax Board actually cannot base your residence in California if you do not physically reside within your home in California for most of the year.
This is especially convenient for people who frequently travel or, perhaps, own other residential property outside of California.
Still, even if you change addresses, remove California on your tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by the California tax code when it comes to taxes.
The above factors listed by the FTB are to be used as a guideline; they are certainly not the only things to consider.
A common fallacy: people frequently believe that moving out of California will make them exempt from paying individual income taxes. This is not necessarily the case, and it would be wrong to assume relocation is a blanket solution.
Requirements for the CA exit tax 2020: do they apply to you?
California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the Californiaexit tax proposal 2020:
Do you generate income from sources within the state? (e.g. real estate investments, business investments in California);
Does your business operate within state lines? (e.g. facilities, employees, etc.)
Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…
1. Income-generating sources from within the state
In other words, if you have invested in or own real estate within California, you still need to pay in-state tax on that real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.
This tax code applies even at the time of sale of that real estate, because it falls under the category of “California-source income”—income derived from sources within California state lines.
FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of real estate and property investments that are subject to Californianonresident taxes:
Community property income
For individuals with spouses who are California residents, the spouse’s income is considered community property and is, therefore, split equally by the couple.
The community property share of that income is taxable to each spouse, even if one of the spouses lives outside of California and has never lived in the state before.
Real estate sales
Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of Californiais taxable under California’s tax code.
This applies even if the owner is a non-resident who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.
2. Business Operations and Activities in California as a Non-resident
Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business within California state lines as a non-resident.
Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside of California or conduct part of their business operations out-of-state that this exempts them from California taxes.
Under the Constitution, a business’s income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.
As applied to California, if a business’s manufacturing facilities are located in Nevada but its workforce, such as remote and/or in-person workers, and corporate offices are in Los Angeles, then that business has demonstrated a sufficient “nexus” or connection with California.
Thus, it is subject to the state’s taxes, and the exit tax in California applies.
If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or “nexus” to the state of California, it may be subject to the state’s taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.
Still, this does not necessarily mean that the California taxes will apply to that business’s total income, especially if only a fraction of the business’s total revenue is derived from California sources.
Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% from California consumers and 60% from Nevada consumers. California will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income, because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.
Types of non-resident businesses and the exit tax in California
FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to Californianon-resident taxes:
Salary and wages: To non-residents, wages and salaries for services performed in California are taxable, regardless of the location of the employer or employee.
Income from business: Income from a business, trade, or profession conducted in the state may be taxed on non-residents.
Foreseeable Developments to the CaliforniaExit Tax 2020 Proposal—Assembly Bill 2088
In terms of whether the Californiaexit tax 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.
The exit tax clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:
Moving to the state of California in fear that the state tax will follow them even after they leave the state, and
Moving out of the state for the similar reason of having to continue to pay California taxes while also navigating the state and local taxes of their new residence.
To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to first understand the levels of “scrutiny” or critical inspection of the law that will be applied.
Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional right—the right to travel—strict scrutiny will apply here.
Strict scrutiny of the “leaving California tax”
Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a “compelling government interest” and the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.
In other words, the question revolves around whether the law is essential or necessary and whether there are alternative, less-intrusive methods of attaining the same result.
The state of California will likely argue that the “compelling” interest is to mitigate economic inequality and the disparity between classes. This is certainly an important and necessary issue to address.
However, coming up with an argument to show that the exit tax is “narrowly tailored” in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are available will be an uphill battle.
Overall, because the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional right and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address, the likelihood of the exit tax withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.
Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and it’s important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.
Avoiding the California exodus tax: what can you do?
The first step to approaching this California tax for leaving state is to consult a licensed tax attorney and explore your options.
Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.
Further, having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxable under California law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.
Key takeaways on the California wealth and exit tax
The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the Californiawealth tax over 10 years ruling, whereby if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.
As part of this California 10 year tax, the exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separate tax return.
However, this all depends on your residency status, which can be a complicated matter. Get in touch with our team if you need help with residency or anything to do with the Californiaexit tax.
Ginsburg delivered the high court’s opinion in Timbs v. Indiana on Feb. 20, 2019, in which she laid out how the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government.
In that case, Indiana police had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his father died. After Timbs pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, he was fined $10,000 and the state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle. The judge ruled that taking the vehicle was an excessive fine because it was worth four times the penalty and excessive fines are prohibited by the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals, but the Indiana Supreme Court overturned it on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines only applies to the federal government and not to the states.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it does, in fact, bind the states as well.
He has previously claimed he got involved in politics because of civil rights, voting, the environment, Vietnam, redlining, white supremacists, a highway, being a public defender, Bull Connor’s dogs, and much more.
Biden says he got involved in politics because of Cesar Chavez.
He has previously claimed he got involved because of civil rights, voting, the environment, Vietnam, redlining, white supremacists, a highway, being a public defender, Bull Connor's dogs, and more. pic.twitter.com/QUPucin1P7
Interesting that now Ceaser Chavez is why he got involved. What do we know about him?
Beginning in the spring of 1974 Chavez led a systematic attack on undocumented workers coining his crusade as the “Campaign Against Illegals.” Chavez’s UFW campaign circulated a petition calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and INS to enforce immigration laws and to “remove the thousands of illegal aliens now working in the fields.” Frustrated with the INS’s lack of action, the UFW had volunteers that tracked down illegals and informed the INS of their places of unemployment and homes. By the summer of 1974 the UFW had reported more than 5,000 undocumented workers to the INS. Despite the UFW’s efforts the Border Patrol reported the arrest and removal of only 195 “illegals.
Furthermore, the UFW formed a militia coined as the “Wet Line” to guard the Arizona-Mexico border with a few hundred goons in which they claimed to have semi-succeeded in policing several miles. The militia was headed by Chavez’s own unscrupulous cousin Manuel Chavez. The Wet Line lasted until at least 1975 where the militia men roamed freely intercepting undocumented immigrants and beating them. Chavez did everything in his power to hold back the mighty wave of undocumented immigrants from Mexico because as the Fresno Bee reported.
Supreme Court for now tells Texas to do the job the feds refuse to do. Arrest the undocumented. Looks as if the Democrats will have to figure out another way to get the undocumented to vote.
Supreme Court lifts stay on Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants at border. A 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Tuesday lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.
Biden with the man who made him rich and will create a bloodbath on our auto industry. It’s a known fact that China is building factories in Mexico. Factories to build Electric cars. What do you think happens next? Let the Chinese tell you.
Xiaopeng in a letter to XPeng employees obtained by CNBC last month. Xiaopeng suggested that “a bloodbath” is coming for the American auto industry this year.
China seeks to deliver a “brutal knockout round” against its Western competitors, including the U.S., in the global EV market, Xiaopeng said.
Winning. For now. Court halts SEC climate disclosure rule. The Biden Administration has been using the SEC and other government agencies from moving forward with exploration, drilling, etc. All in the name of the phony climate change. Well the 5th Circuit stepped in.
A federal court on Friday halted a new federal rule that would require publicly traded companies to reveal climate change-related information.
A panel of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges issued an order that pauses the rule as litigation against it plays out. Vote was 3-0.
It also requires some large and mid-sized companies to disclose how much carbon dioxide they are directly emitting and how much comes from their energy use.