California: How about a retroactive tax grab, plus interest?

posted at 12:01 pm on March 20, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

In his State of the State address in January, Gov. Jerry Brown proudly proclaimed that, “Two years ago, they were writing our obituary. Well it didn’t happen. California is back, its budget is balanced, and we are on the move.”

…Which is interesting, because the January unemployment numbers just came in, and California is apparently competing with Rhode Island for the worst state unemployment rate in the country.

California’s jobless rate was unchanged at 9.8% in January for the second straight month, and that lack of improvement put the Golden State in a tie with Rhode Island for the worst unemployment in the U.S.

On the other end of the spectrum, North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate, 3.3%, the government said Monday in releasing updated and revised employment data for all 50 states.

California will release its county-by-county breakdown of jobs Friday, which economists expect will reflect the slow growth that is predicted in the state for 2013.

While some of California’s interior counties are really struggling, the wealthy coasts and the tech industry are helping to keep everything propped up — but it seems that the progressive state just can’t resist taking a little off the top wherever possible.

California’s top-end taxpayers — already steamed over a recent hike in the nation’s highest state income tax — are now fuming over a new $120 million retroactive tax grab on small business owners.

In December, the state’s tax authority determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco. …

“Once the revenue is identified, those folks up in Sacramento will figure out how to spend it already,” warns former state Sen. George Runner. “And that’s what makes this so difficult. Even though it has this great bipartisan support as being wrong.” …

But don’t you dare imply that California is engendering an unfriendly business climate! California certainly has plenty of lifelines, and officials will point to various positive economic and employment trends as evidence that California is heading in the right direction — but other states are stepping it up on revising tax codes, reducing regulation, and attracting businesses, and the California blue-state model is hardly a recipe for long-term success.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…Thus, the US constitution prohibits ex post facto laws by the states. Article 9 prohibits them by Congress.

This is dead on arrival. Very few courts would take more than one 12(b)(6) motion to strike this down. Except possibly San Francisco, of course.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:08 PM

But, you see, it’s not an ex post facto law, it’s an ex post facto interpretation of an already existing law. Ha Ha! You lose. We all lose. Laws are so vaguely written an give so much power to bureaucrats that the government can do pretty much whatever it wants by decree.

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM

There’s probably some silly law against it.

They’ve got laws against everything else.

(And, if they don’t, they can pass one pretty quickly…retroactively)

Solaratov on March 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The loons have created for more laws than they can enforce, that’s how we get by now.

antipc on March 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Do I really need to say any more?????

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Not really. Our comments (well, mine anyway) are not directed at you personally.
I actually do sympathize, or should I say empathize, with conservatives like you who are stuck there with what’s going on and seing it crumble around you despite your own best efforts.
I, and many others, feel like I’m in the same position in Colorado. I live in a solid red county, and even though we (my county) vote darn near solid Republican every election, we can only watch as the Denver-Boulder area gains control (due to population density) and ruins the state.
But my attitude, and response, has shifted to Let It Burn – because it seems like we’re down to that’s what needs to happen for us to be able to take back Colorado, California, and the country as a whole.

dentarthurdent on March 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Sorry, Californian here, and you are profoundly mistaken. The percentage of illegal aliens in California is about the same as the national percentage, it only seems larger because California has the single largest population per state in the Union.

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:07 PM

California has an estimated 25% of all illegal aliens in the United States, according to estimates I have read. California has 12 percent of the nation’s population, so you have double your share.

You might try leaving your subdivision occasionally.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

But, you see, it’s not an ex post facto law, it’s an ex post facto interpretation of an already existing law. Ha Ha! You lose. We all lose. Laws are so vaguely written an give so much power to bureaucrats that the government can do pretty much whatever it wants by decree.

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I couldn’t agree more. The prohibition against ex post facto laws was initially restricted to matters of criminal law. Then it was applied in a very limited fashion to civil law. Then the issue was whether or not the matter was punitive.

And, whether or not it’s been applied to retroactive tax assessments is something that I’ve not delved into – but, with Roberts at the Supreme Court helm – and it being a tax, or not, NOTHING is certain – except for UNCERTAINTY.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Actually, you pointed out that about 7% (more like 7.5% given the numbers you used) of CA residents are illegal aliens. You used the number of 3 million. The current talking points use 12 million as the number of illegal aliens in America as a whole. Which would give CA about … 25% of them. That would mean (since 38 million residents is *not* 25% of the American population) that you have a disproportionate share. If you use the number of 20 million for illegal aliens, you still carry about 15% – again, more than your “share”.

I don’t think illegals are the main cause for CA’s problems, but it wasn’t all “imports”, either. Being a collection point for most of the hippies of the 60s certainly didn’t help CA any.

GWB on March 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

They get the government they deserve.

Republicans should make that their slogan

Iblis on March 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

This actually presents an interesting legal question: Is a change in interpretation of an existing law which directly leads to a punitive action ex post facto or not?

My guess is that the Libs will have a hard row to hoe here. Universally, courts apply the law as written and applied at the time of the offense. I.E., whatever is the law today is what you are judged by. And that includes practices and regulations (which in some areas are the same as law, such as workmen’s compensation and other administrative law areas. Taxes are in that arena too).

I don’t think even a lib court could claim that a “changed interpretation” that voids a tax credit is not a substantive change in the law, such that it would not be subject to an ex post facto claim.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

One more thing: if the courts allow changes in interpretations of law to apply retroactively, it destroys the concept of precedence and a whole host of other legal concepts we depend on.

It strips a lot of power from the court system as well. So I don’t think even a liberal judge would allow it to happen.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Update in reference to

Unconstitutional, actually. But it’s only in the US Constitution*, and only applies to Congress, so Californicate can go to town on this! Woohoo! You go girl!

* Disclaimer: I have no idea of the existence or relevance of any other anti-ex post facto law/constitutional provision.

GWB on March 20, 2013 at 1:00 PM

It is in the California state constitution too.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

However, interestingly enough there is a legal argument that the exclusion of ex post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, and not to civil law. However, failure to pay taxes is a criminal violation.

We know what the outcome will be, which will clarify where we stand.

Subotai Bahadur on March 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM

….You might try leaving your subdivision occasionally.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Are personal jabs really necessary eh?

PFFFFT

Scrumpy on March 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

“Two years ago, they were writing our obituary. Well it didn’t happen. California is back, its budget is balanced, and we are on the move.”

..translation: they just rolled the stiff on the gurney from one room in to morgue to another.

The War Planner on March 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

The prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution prevents CONGRESS from passing such laws. It does NOT apply, per se, to the states.

The doctrine of incorporation applies only to the Bill of Rights, which is “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibition on ex post facto applies to states only in criminal law, see Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). It does not apply in civil cases.

As to cases involving tax law, the Supreme Court in has ruled that retroactive tax laws are NOT ex post facto laws (see Calder, as well). In United States v Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that retroactive application of tax legislation IS constitutional and meets the requirements of due process and such laws are subject to rational basis review, which is the lowest level of judicial scrutiny.

Calder v Bull

United States v Carlton

I have to run out, but if someone has the time, the correct place to look would be the California Constitution. See if there is similar language to Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 in the state constitution. If so, then California MIGHT be barred from passing such laws, IF ITS STATE COURTS OR LAWS HOLD THAT TAX LAWS ARE ALSO PROHIBITED FROM APPLYING RETROACTIVELY AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE EX POST FACTO BAN.

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM

..translation: they just rolled the stiff on the gurney from one room in to morgue to another.

The War Planner on March 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

A mortuary shell-game, as it were.

What’ll these kids think up next?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Actually, you pointed out that about 7% (more like 7.5% given the numbers you used) of CA residents are illegal aliens. You used the number of 3 million. The current talking points use 12 million as the number of illegal aliens in America as a whole. Which would give CA about … 25% of them. That would mean (since 38 million residents is *not* 25% of the American population) that you have a disproportionate share. If you use the number of 20 million for illegal aliens, you still carry about 15% – again, more than your “share”.

I don’t think illegals are the main cause for CA’s problems, but it wasn’t all “imports”, either. Being a collection point for most of the hippies of the 60s certainly didn’t help CA any.

GWB on March 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Estimating where exactly illegal immigrants reside in the United States is tricky, but the Pew Hispanic Center did just that in 2011 for each state. Although California has the highest number of illegal immigrants, Nevada has the largest proportion of illegal immigrants—7.2 percent of the state population and as much as 10 percent of its workforce. California and Texas follow at just under 7 percent of their populations, with New Jersey and Arizona rounding out the top five.

Like I said, about 7%.

You might try leaving your subdivision occasionally.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

You might try pulling your head out of your a$$, I don’t live in a subdivision, I live in rural Southern California within 40 miles of the US/Mexico border. I ma fully aware of what is going on in my state.

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

I notice you agreed with me the other day too. Careful: Most people think I’m an ahole, just sayin’.

…I don’t think even a lib court could claim that a “changed interpretation” that voids a tax credit is not a substantive change in the law, such that it would not be subject to an ex post facto claim.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, it is that lawyers and judges can tie logic into knots to come to any decision they want to. It’s all about balancing this and considering that and the spirit and penumbras.

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

California should change it’s name to “New Cyprus”.

theCork on March 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

^5 :-)

Scrumpy on March 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I don’t know what all the fuss is about…

… Mexico does this all the time.

Oh, wait…!

Seven Percent Solution on March 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Well, I suppose it’s nice that somebody out there still believes that leftists are the least bit restrained by the rule of law. (no, I’m not being sarcastic)

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

moon beam! We elected the dope.

StevC on March 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I notice you agreed with me the other day too. Careful: Most people think I’m an ahole, just sayin’.

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

LOL, thanks for the heads-up. And, as much as I’d love to get along with people, in here, because most of us appear to be on the same team – in the end, I’ll speak my mind, and I don’t care what others think about me, when I do.

I’m sure that you feel the same way.

So, we agree!

:OP

OhEssYouCowboys on March 20, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Okay, so I’ve looked into this a bit.

Long story short, the Supreme Court has generally not cared about the ex post facto clause with respect to taxes. The usual battle on retroactive taxes is under substantive due process.

Instead, the biggest hurdle here appears to be the 5 year period going back. The Supremes are okay with a “modest” period of retroactivity, such as a year or two. But 12 years was held to be way to long. I would guess that a court would state that 2 years would be the maximum California could go back here.

Depending on how narrow the class of people affected by this “interpretation” is, you could possibly go for a bill of attainder claim as well.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:47 PM

RWM: Read this.

The War Planner on March 20, 2013 at 1:48 PM

moon beam! We elected the dope.

StevC on March 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM

If you didn’t vote for him, then you had nothing to do with him being elected.

In such case, he was foisted upon you, by misfits who desire to be dependent on the benevolent State.

Kinda like how Commander Transparent was foisted on all of us.

And we had nothing to do with it.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 20, 2013 at 1:48 PM

California has a history of retroactive re-writes. The state AG re-interpreted California’s Roberti-Roos “assault weapon” ban to include millions of firearms that had already been legally sold. The buyers were given a deadline to register their now-illegal firearms, even though the state supreme court had already ruled that re-opening the registration period violated the law, leaving open the possibility that those who complied with the demand for registration might have that list used to confiscate their legally-purchased firearm at any point in the future.

Socratease on March 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Resist We Much: The US constitution does apply ex post facto prohibitions to the states in Article 1, clause 10 of the US Constitution.

But you are right about Carlton. However, the Court didn’t say any retroactive tax was permissible, only under a specified period that is “modest.” Whatever that means. Carlton said 14 months, but Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927) said 12 years was way too long (and Coolidge is good law still).

So it’s a crap shoot in between those numbers, for sure.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM

..translation: they fixed the wheel on the gurney, then just rolled the stiff on the gurney from one room in to morgue to another.

The War Planner on March 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

FIFY. That’s where the “balanced” part comes in.

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I don’t see where your information disagrees with what I said. I think you’re missing that we’re saying there’s apples *and* oranges in the basket and you’re insisting on ignoring the apples.

GWB on March 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I left the People Republic of Kalifornia in early ’08. For two years i would get notices telling me that I needed to renew my vehicle registration. I of course ignored it but couldn’t help chuckle at their persistence to take my money. Registration for my vehicle in California was $345; in Texas my registration is $50 bucks.

MoreLiberty on March 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Cali is the US’s Cyprus.

All of Europe and the USA will follow, soon.

Cyprus ended the banking world, as you knew it. If you don’t see, you will be hurt.

Schadenfreude on March 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM

The biggest problem is not illegals, IMHO, but the whole welfare state. The biggest problem is the unholy alliance between public unions and Democrats. Jerry Brown decades ago allowed public unions and, more importantly, automatic deduction of union dues, even from non-members, which were them forwarded to unions who then sent 80% of the money to the Dems.

If you can stop the funding, you will stop the welfare state. But first you need to educate the people and nobody is doing that.

PattyJ on March 20, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Gov. Jerry Brown proudly proclaimed that, “Two years ago, they were writing our obituary.

Good, We can take that off the To Do list.

socalcon on March 20, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Subotai Bahadur on March 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Constitution Shmon-stitution.

socalcon on March 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Moonbeam is on drugs.

GarandFan on March 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

And this is somehow different than Cyprus, how?

John the Libertarian on March 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Moonbeam is on drugs.

He has been since the ’60s. He didn’t have much to start with then, and now he has so little with which to work in the space his brain once occupied its only drugs that keep him functioning so to speak. And barely at that.

hawkeye54 on March 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Well, I suppose it’s nice that somebody out there still believes that leftists are the least bit restrained by the rule of law. (no, I’m not being sarcastic)

Fenris on March 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

In this particular case, the leftists aren’t restrained by law, but by the reality of the situation. Anyone, who believes that a retroactive tax would raise a tremendous amount of money, is probably not dealing with the reality of the situation. Most people do not have the funds available to pay retroactive taxes. The state could always attach liens to property, but it needs cash.

If this idea had any real chance of generating a bonanza in dollars, Obama, Nancy, and Harry might have tried it in the first 2 years when they had full control of Congress. Repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy retroactively to 2001. Of course, they didn’t because they probably realise that it might be red meat for the base, but bad politics and an even worse “revenue generator.”

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

SWalker on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

California is tied with Texas for second place in percentage of Hispanic residents with 37.6%. Only New Mexico has more with 46.3%. Michigan, by contrast, has a 4.4% Hispanic population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans

If you don’t believe that illegal immigration has played a major role in closing your state’s hospitals, destroying your educational system and driving the state’s debt, you’re the one with your head up your a$$.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Anyone, who believes that a retroactive tax would raise a tremendous amount of money, is probably not dealing with the reality of the situation.

Since when, in regard to taxes, has the Left ever let the reality of the situation interfere with their intent and actions.

hawkeye54 on March 20, 2013 at 2:50 PM

25% of all illegal aliens in the United States are in California, according to the Department of Homeland Security:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

But, illegal aliens aren’t a major part of California’s problems. lol!

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Resist We Much: The US constitution does apply ex post facto prohibitions to the states in Article 1, clause 10 of the US Constitution.

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I agree, but Calder v Bull ruled that the ex post facto prohibitions were limited to criminal cases. Civil cases and tax cases were not.

But you are right about Carlton. However, the Court didn’t say any retroactive tax was permissible, only under a specified period that is “modest.” Whatever that means. Carlton said 14 months, but Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U.S. 531 (1927) said 12 years was way too long (and Coolidge is good law still).

So it’s a crap shoot in between those numbers, for sure.

Correct. I have to leave for a while longer.

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM

What, is it a slow news day on Fox?

The Franchise tax board announced two weeks ago that they were not going to send out these bills for sixty days while the legislature fixed the wording in the law, which was written back during Pete Wilson’s watch and I am going to miss.

It gave people a tax break if they invested in businesses with employees in California. Apparently this is unconstitutional and I’d love to find out what moron brought this to the court’s attention.

BTW, don’t mess with FTB, they’re worse than the mafia, and your money is their money until you prove otherwise. I’ve heard stories from aerospace retiree’s about the taxes on their pensions. Doesn’t matter where you retire to, you earned the pension in California, you owe California taxes on it.

California residents working in other states or countries owe California taxes on that money. So if you go to AZ work a job have taxes taken out, expect California to tax you as well.

danielreyes on March 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM

While some of California’s interior counties are really struggling, the wealthy coasts and the tech industry are helping to keep everything propped up

There seems to be a orchestrated plan to pass laws and regulations that intentionally hammer Republican areas of the state (which is what the interior counties are). Cutting off the water to agricultural areas and diverting it to the cities or the “smelt” is one recent example. You can’t farm without water and California gets, in an average year, pretty close to zero rain from June to September. The smelt don’t vote for Democrats but they don’t vote for Republicans, either, so passing regulations that increase the number of smelt while decreasing the number of Republicans seems like a good idea to them.

crosspatch on March 20, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Elections do have consequences! And so do education and immigration policies.

Over the years, I have made thousands of phone calls at Republican phone banks to Registered Republican Voters. The number of Voters I have called in the San Francisco Bay Area who didn’t speak English well enough to answer the phone was truly astounding.

And these are Registered Voters! Which means they are U.S. Citizens and presumably they either entered the U.S. legally or were born here.

The California Secretary of State supports the lack of English skills by offering voter registration forms in 9 different languages.

With the goal of inspiring and preparing every eligible citizen to vote, the Secretary of State provides this New Voter page, plus election-related materials and voter hotline assistance, in nine additional languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/new-voter/

It is unrealistic to expect Voters to make informed decisions, if they don’t speak English well enough to follow the news or to research the issues and candidates that are on the ballot.

wren on March 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM

California: How about a retroactive tax grab, plus interest?

Government as a criminal enterprise.

farsighted on March 20, 2013 at 4:07 PM

The weather is really nice here right now.

newportmike on March 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM

High-Speed Fail

mojo on March 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Key Senate Dem: Forget about immigration reform anytime soon

In a sharply worded statement Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his committee will not make its deadline of considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of April. Abandoning hopes for a quick agreement on the issue, Leahy said, “This process will take time. It will not be easy.”

Directing criticism at the White House, the so-called Gang of 8, and, to a lesser extent, Republicans, Leahy said he has tried to make reform the top priority of the Judiciary Committee. But no one else has gone along.

“For months I have urged the president to send his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform to the Senate,” Leahy said. “I understand he has delayed releasing it at the request of a few senators who are engaged in secret, closed door discussions on their own proposal and who committed to completing it by the beginning of March. That deadline and others have come and gone.”

Resist We Much on March 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM

It is unrealistic to expect Voters to make informed decisions, if they don’t speak English well enough to follow the news or to research the issues and candidates that are on the ballot.

Which is exactly the reason the dems prefer immigrants to retain and use their home country languages and provide incentives to keep it that way instead of immigrants being required to immerse themselves in English to use in public and especially for research candidates and issues. Dems also find it easier to lie to immigrants in their own language in what they are given in political material.

hawkeye54 on March 20, 2013 at 5:17 PM

They’re getting what they voted for.

Blaise on March 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Not the first time.

Evil

Speakup on March 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM

danielreyes on March 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM

California is one of about 13 states that expect you to pay income tax on pensions earned while a resident of that state regardless of where you live. From what I understand they are the only state actively pursuing people.

RonK on March 20, 2013 at 8:31 PM

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest

They are going to do anything they think they can get away with.

California is ripe for Republicans. But they have zero guts.
If Republicans go in there with a hard core unapologetic conservative message who knows what they could achieve.

Imagine how freaked out the Democrat party would become if that happened.. and Republicans started making gains and the state turned red!?

JellyToast on March 20, 2013 at 10:34 PM

My former CPAs, tax attorneys and now current CPA all state or did state the FTB (California’s tax agency) are worse than the IRS for being jackbooted thugs. They will hunt you down. They will search available records if you claim residency out of state (own 1 in California and another elsehwere with the latter claimed as primary) to include cel phone bills, cel tower records if available to determine days in state, electric/ gas bills for out useage/ days and even ask for food receipts from grocery stores.

They are especially hard on the area of the eastern shores of Lake Tahoe (Nv side)such as Incline Village which at one point was known for “post office box” residencies

theblacksheepwasright on March 20, 2013 at 10:41 PM

this is lovely irony, i just left the state for Montana, I thought I would just get a wage earning job, but after two weeks here, I believe i will be starting my own business. God what a Sh!t hole I just left. Most of my friends had a blank look when I said I was leaving to the north. Shmucks all of them

19thgenamerican on March 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM

California has an estimated 25% of all illegal aliens in the United States, according to estimates I have read. California has 12 percent of the nation’s population, so you have double your share.

You might try leaving your subdivision occasionally.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

The 25% number is low, IMO. Even GULAG liberals admit to roughly 7 Millions of illegals and you can bet they low ball all numbers. Even this liberal admitted to number, 7 Millions, is about a THIRD of all estimated illegals in the country and conveniently matches the welfare recipient number as well (one third).

You can see illegals all over the place save for some ritzy gated neighborhoods, they all stand on large intersections and near Home Depots type stores, looking for day labor jobs. You can’t escape them. Visiting ANY Emergency Room in GULAG will easily show tens of them, at any given time of day or night, awaiting and receiving FREE treatment.

It was recently estimated that GULAG spends about $6-8 Billion per year on illegals. That was before the idiots voted for free higher education for illegals and given the idiotic cost of tuition in GULAG these days you can bet that when properly counted, I would estimate that between $12B and $15 BILLION are wasted on illegals in GULAG alone each and every year. And I am probably estimating too low.

riddick on March 21, 2013 at 1:41 AM

My former CPAs, tax attorneys and now current CPA all state or did state the FTB (California’s tax agency) are worse than the IRS for being jackbooted thugs.

theblacksheepwasright on March 20, 2013 at 10:41 PM

All true, this from an ex GULAG resident who now has to deal with GULAG’s version of IRS: Franchise Tax Board. They really don’t like you leaving the state and do all they can to squeeze you for PAST years of (correct) filings, same as retroactive BS they are now trying to pull. And speaking with other ex-pats this seems their SOP. My CPA has filed all the requested paperwork back in May of last year, called them a few times since to make sure they have received it and will look at it, each and every time they said they will “get to it soon”. Well, as of 2 weeks ago they said “they do not have the paperwork”, never mind FedEx receipts and all the prior phone calls when they said they do have it. We have to start from scratch now, but with lessons learned will now make sure to track each and every page we send them, even to the point of walking the papers in ourselves and having someone sign for them. Nightmare does not begin to describe it.

As my CPA put it, IRS are kids that are a dream to deal with when it comes to Franchise Tax Board. Its Gestapo re-incarnated.

About 2 years ago 2 Franchise Tax Board agents showed up at a Sacramento business to arrest the owner for a supposed money he owed the state. Amount owed? 4 pennies if I recall it correctly, or some such. I kid you not. Hitler was a pussy cat…

riddick on March 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM

this is lovely irony, i just left the state for Montana, I thought I would just get a wage earning job, but after two weeks here, I believe i will be starting my own business. God what a Sh!t hole I just left. Most of my friends had a blank look when I said I was leaving to the north. Shmucks all of them

19thgenamerican on March 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I came to Montana 9 years ago. It’s not just geographic travel; it’s time travel. When I first got here I went into a big auto parts store for something and noticed they had cases of shotgun shells on the end of the checkout counter with a sale sign on them. I hadn’t seen anything like that since I was a kid in the early sixties.

claudius on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You folks in California need to get on the net and find out the salaries of your State workers and start screaming to be heard. Your State is similar to a family where mom and pop are working their heads off and the kids are spending them into the poor house. Sometimes the need to say “NO” is the correct choice.

mixplix on March 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Martin O’Malley got away with it, so why not? And would someone please explain to me why a married couple—that would be TWO people living off a given amount of money—gets such a very large penalty. In MD the Democrats (there are no Republicans in MD) give a single person $100,000 a year to live on before they start taxing the “rich”. If there are two of you, they only let you have $50,000 more. Why isn’t it $200,000? And guess who gets to pay all that? IF you have been working for 50 years and if you are diligent enough to have gotten raises and/or promotions instead of earning minimum wages, the government is going to make sure you give every cent to them.

It’s like driving while drinking. If you’re a US citizen, you get put in the slammer. If you’re an illegal alien, you get to go scot free with your fake SS number and food stamps. It’s like college in MD. If you’re gainfully employed, your child will pay through the nose for school with limited student loans available. If you’re an illegal alien, it’s all paid for, as well as your living expenses.

Portia46 on March 21, 2013 at 1:59 PM

This will put about 30 or so of our small business clients out of business and out of their misery. The owners of these small enterprises aren’t making minimum wage where once they were growing rapidly.

Go you sick twisted uneducated idiots in Sacramento……your spending is coming to an end and there is nothing you will be able to do about that. You know it and we know it.

Tangerinesong on March 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Run for the roses Brown, initiate the bullet train! You know the sick part of this is he probably will.

Tangerinesong on March 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of parasites. They vote these people in election after election and are beginning to realize a fundamental truth. When you run a socialist state, at some point the state is going to run out of other peoples’ money and are going to come knocking at your door.

Most of the people that are going to be hit by this retroactive tax grab did NOT vote for these jackasses. The state is controlled by a very small, but densely populated area.

eaglescout_1998 on March 25, 2013 at 6:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 2