Paul L. Caron
Dean




Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Anyone Who Spends More Than 60 Days In A Single Year In California Would Be Subject To Wealth Tax For Ten Years Under Proposed Bill

Wall Street Journal op-ed:  A California Plan to Chase Away the Rich, Then Keep Stalking Them, by Hank Adler (Chapman):

California’s Legislature is considering a wealth tax on residents, part-year residents, and any person who spends more than 60 days inside the state’s borders in a single year. Even those who move out of state would continue to be subject to the tax for a decade—a provision that calls to mind the Eagles’ famous “Hotel California” lyric: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

The California Constitution probably allows a statewide wealth tax on residents, but any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun.

Each year this tax net would gather up a new crop of taxpayers for the next decade. The range of people it proposes to ensnare is staggering: every student attending college in California, anyone having a major medical procedure at a California hospital and needing an extended in-state recovery period, and those who spend two months in California away from New York or London winters. Under California tax law, there is no distinction between a nonresident from Minnesota and a nonresident from Dubai.

Assembly Bill 2088 proposes calculating the wealth tax based on current world-wide net worth each Dec. 31. For part-year and temporary residents, the tax would be proportionate based on their number of days in California. The annual tax would be on current net worth and therefore would include wealth earned, inherited or obtained through gifts or estates long before and long after leaving the state. ...

The authors of the bill estimate the wealth tax will provide Sacramento $7.5 billion in additional revenue every year. Another proposal—to increase the top state income-tax rate to 16.8%—would annually raise another $6.8 billion. Today, California’s wealthiest 1% pay approximately 46% of total state income taxes. Adding the wealth tax to individual taxes and including those taxpayers who have abandoned California, the combination of the two proposals would have 1% of the state’s population paying about 53% of individual taxes. ...

Proponents argue that the wealth tax is “only” 0.4% on net worth over $30 million, and the percentage of net worth taxed would decline each year during the 10-year “tail” should a taxpayer leave the state. While the rate appears negligible and the $30 million base seems high, it is a slippery slope. In California, tax rates rarely get lower. The state’s top income-tax rate was 9.3% in 2003. Soon it could be 16.8%. Why 0.4% instead of 1%, 2% or 10%? Why not a $10 million base?

Even at 0.4%, there are eye-popping new levels of actual tax. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg would face a first-year tax of approximately $400 million. If he moved out of state immediately, his total wealth tax over the subsequent decade would be another $2 billion. If he remained in California, the wealth tax would extract $4 billion over that decade.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2020/12/anyone-who-spends-more-than-60-days-in-a-single-year-in-california-would-be-subject-to-wealth-tax-fo.html

Tax, Tax News | Permalink

Comments

If they can catch them . . .

Posted by: Mike Livingston | Dec 24, 2020 2:38:07 AM

Tax the rich out of existence, or at least out of the state! What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: AMTbuff | Dec 23, 2020 1:45:13 PM

Hard to believe that the SCt would hold that 60+ days presence was sufficient nexus for 10 years of taxation, but maybe they're planning on a packed Supreme Court by then.

Posted by: tax guy | Dec 23, 2020 10:42:05 AM