[dmabram]

California is unusually aggressive compared to other states. We had an employee with a home address in California who never set foot in California during the period he worked for us. We paid his withholding correctly to CA. Received a similar letter from the CA franchise tax board that our business also owed a CA return with a minimum $800 filing fee. They only accepted correspondence by fax, no email, no website. Since he was never in CA during his period of employment, we didn't legally owe the return, but CA said the onus was on us to somehow prove he never set foot in CA. Providing his personal credit card receipts showing daily charges for meals and such in DC (where we were located)over the entire period of employment was deemed not good enough. Ultimately we gave up and just paid the $800, it was costing more in time to argue. I've never had similar issues regarding employees in other states. If there were disputes, issues or mistakes related to tax filings, there was a reasonable process for communicating with the state tax board and resolving.

[telchior]

California's attitude toward tax is that if they can strongarm you for money, they will. The state really doesn't care about what's reasonable, moral, or within the bounds of the law as it's written; if they become aware of even a tenuous connection to the state, even if that's just having once lived there, they'll try to tax you.

For those who are considering leaving California: make a list of ALL ways you can cut ties with the state, make absolutely sure you check all those boxes, and document everything.

[tshaddox]

> but CA said the onus was on us to somehow prove he never set foot in CA.

Isn't that true in approximately the same sense that it's true that the onus would be on the California government to find you and work with your local government in order to extradite you?

[hnburnsy]

They just garnish your\your businesses' bank account, no extradition needed...

[cryptonector]

No. If CA were to issue a warrant for your arrest and an extradition request, you'd soon be in a world of pain. You can't do the same to CA.

[arrosenberg]

> They only accepted correspondence by fax, no email, no website.

FWIW, I've never had a problem reaching the FTB or CDTFA by phone. They also have field offices all over the state, though I realize that would not have been useful in your case.

[dmabram]

They required documentation (for example, the credit card statements), so a call wasn't enough, I could mail or fax. But I did call them multiple times when trying to resolve, which was also a hassle. It's absurd that fax was the only means of electronic communication acceptable. How can you not accept email or have a web application? I don't know of a single other state that requires electronic communication solely by fax. I took it as a sign that CA wanted to create artificial hurdles so we would just give up and pay, which is ultimately what we did.

[jedberg]

If that ever happens to you again, presumably the employee has a state congressperson that represents the address where they get paid, and is a constituent. You can usually email the state congressperson and get a response and they can help you interact with the regulatory body.