Hacker News Reader

Comment by itake | Hacker News Reader

I can say with confidence that the people you personally know are committing tax fraud.

Again, provide a source for that confidence.

My FAANG employer and my CPA both agree I owe tax on RSUs that “partially vested” while a resident. An example of 48 shares of RSUs that vest 1/48 every month for 4 years (48 months), and I lived in CA for 6 months after they were granted (not vested, granted). In months 1-6, all were 100% California taxable. In month 7, I owed 6/7ths of the normal California tax. In month 8, it was 6/8ths. In month 48, the final vest, will be taxed by California at 6/48ths of a full resident. My new state also taxes them, but I can deduct taxes I pay to California so I don’t get double-taxes.

You might want to double check your confidence - unless I’m reading it horribly wrong, Investopedia supports the previous post, not yours.

[0] - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/restricted-stoc...

If you want to know about California tax law, and you have three options:

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.

For RSUs, your link says "California will tax the wage income to the extent services were performed in California from the grant date to the vesting date."

Where did you get the 33%/25% for years 3 & 4?

1 year in Cali out of 3 years after grant before vest = 33%

1 year in Cali out of 4 years after grant before vest = 25%

> If you want to know about California tax law, and you have three options:

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.

Right, but that option would have been difficult to execute at 8pm on Monday, when I wrote my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com