Got a source for that? I can say with confidence that I personally know dozens of people who have moved out of state with granted but unvested RSUs from their companies and exactly 0 have paid any taxes to California for them.
Other states even have forms for you to submit this calculation to them, see for example New York's IT203-F Schedule B. But you still have to apportion the income between states like this whether there's a form to do it on or not.
[0] - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/restricted-stoc...
A) An article on Investopedia, that has a section about taxes in general, but not about California tax in particular.
B) A comment from someone on HN talking specifically about California tax law.
C) A publication by the California Franchise Tax Board.
Which would you pick?
If you chose B, check out my earlier comment.
If you chose C, check out https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html
Not sure why you would choose A, as it's neither specific to California taxes, nor is it an authority.
This is missing the best and most appropriate option:
D) Consult with tax accountant/lawyer very familiar with California.
If non-trivial money is involved, anything else is playing with fire.
Where did you get the 33%/25% for years 3 & 4?
1 year in Cali out of 4 years after grant before vest = 25%
If I'm reading it right, I should move the hell out of CA as fast as possible and skip waiting until next year as planned.
It might sound expensive, but the alternative is worse. Consider a friend of mine during the 1999 stock bubble who had stock options. The bubble burst, and he owed taxes on the bubble amount, even though he never sold the stock. He was bankrupted, lost his house, and moved in with his family to a trailer. He had no idea about the tax consequences of his options.
Search for the phrase 'one reasonable method'.
To me, in the contrived example I outlined, it seems reasonable to pay CA tax only on the first year's vest. But, from reading the linked page, I'm not sure whether the CA tax authorities could be made to see it the same way.
Of course, your friends are free to declare and pay taxes as they see fit, given their understanding of the law, their risk tolerance etc.
- RSUs are a type of restricted stock, which suggests that they would be covered by section E. (supporting my earlier assumption.)
- The examples in section E talk about 'purchase date' instead of 'grant date', suggesting they're talking about RSAs. (supporting your point.)
However: RSUs must be covered by that publication somehow. If they're not covered by section E, then which section covers them?