I do not believe that is correct. High three is the DOD policy, but if you want the bottom line answer, email the retirement folks @ NPC. They are the experts.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Retirement/Retiree Gouge Forum?
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
If you need copies of your official military personnel files (OMPF), Point Capture totals, medical records, etc., it is Standard Form 180 (SF-180)
The one thing I wish someone told me prior to retirement:
-Download your ACTIVE DUTY LESs from myPay prior to retirement. All your active duty myPay docs go away once you retire.
(Why? I became a California resident after retirement, and California came after me for previous year's state taxes. I was an Oregon resident while on active duty, so I had to contact BUPERS to get a copy of my LES as proof to tell California to piss off).
-Download your ACTIVE DUTY LESs from myPay prior to retirement. All your active duty myPay docs go away once you retire.
(Why? I became a California resident after retirement, and California came after me for previous year's state taxes. I was an Oregon resident while on active duty, so I had to contact BUPERS to get a copy of my LES as proof to tell California to piss off).
CA tries to scam taxes out of everyone.
Both my brother and I were FL residents the entire time we were in the Navy. We each spent about 25% of our Navy years at NAS Moffett Field or Mather AFB (for NFO training). After we retired in 1998, we both got letters from CA stating we owed them taxes on 25% of our retirement pay as we were in CA for 25% of our active duty years.
They tried the same thing with my Dad when he retired from the Army. I've heard of others in my timeframe too.
A visit to the nearest JAG office resulted in a letter to CA telling them they were violating multiple federal laws with their demand. Never heard from CA again. The JAG said it was a common CA thing hoping people were stupid enough to pay them.
Both my brother and I were FL residents the entire time we were in the Navy. We each spent about 25% of our Navy years at NAS Moffett Field or Mather AFB (for NFO training). After we retired in 1998, we both got letters from CA stating we owed them taxes on 25% of our retirement pay as we were in CA for 25% of our active duty years.
They tried the same thing with my Dad when he retired from the Army. I've heard of others in my timeframe too.
A visit to the nearest JAG office resulted in a letter to CA telling them they were violating multiple federal laws with their demand. Never heard from CA again. The JAG said it was a common CA thing hoping people were stupid enough to pay them.
California sent me a letter saying I owed them taxes for a year I lived in Arizona as a Texas resident. I sent them a hand written letter telling them they need to reimburse me for the stamp I had to use to respond to their threats/ attempted shakedown but they didn’t send anything else.
My last duty station was North Island (2 years) before retiring. Stayed in California because kid #2 just graduated HS and was headed to a Cali school. I gave the Franchise Tax Board proof via my LES for my last year of service and they left me alone.
I didn't communicate my thought very well. I'll try this again and hopefully do a better job. But first: the fact that CA calls their State IRS the Franchise Tax Board is so...California. lol weird
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that your actions caused them to look back, I'm more curious as to why they're looking backwards in the first place. And if they are looking backwards at new residents, how far back can they look? Or do they just assume when they have a return in hand for the current year but none in hand for the prior year(s) the filer must be delinquent?
Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that your actions caused them to look back, I'm more curious as to why they're looking backwards in the first place. And if they are looking backwards at new residents, how far back can they look? Or do they just assume when they have a return in hand for the current year but none in hand for the prior year(s) the filer must be delinquent?
Because they are blood sucking leech scumbags who try to scam every penny they can whether legally or illegally. After all, the illegals need their California tax payer supplied social welfare and unemployment benefits.
Ahhhhhhh. Yes. Of course.
Regarding my question I think I found the trigger via google in that it would appear new resident filers may be scrutinized to see if they should be subject to any taxes for a partial year whether they were military or civilian or if they were actually living in CA in a non resident status while earning income regardless of its source. Additionally, CA subjects some types of income to CA Income Tax regardless of whether that person is a resident or not. To HAL's point, that feels rather "aggressive".
The state of California tries to come after state income taxes each year for airline pilots (and other employees) who do not live in California but who are based in California each year. This costs those employees, and their employers, an untold amount of time and effort proving that they can’t owe them
money that isn’t legally theirs.
So yeah, it’s nothing but a state-sanctioned shakedown of certain employee groups year after year. Not to mention active-duty military members who aren’t residents of California. And some of them may be uninformed enough to pay it. So I guess in your mind that makes it okay?
Primarily, it was was the way you said “Ahhhhhhh. Yes. Of course.” in response to what HAL posted about Commiefornia. That made me think you were being sarcastic, on account of the seven h’s versus the usual one. After you posted the stuff out of their tax guide I wanted to make sure you understood precisely which two common demographic groups on this site continued to be harangued by them and thus feel strongly about their practices.
So you disagreed with my spelling. To your point, words do matter. They can both reinforce support or undermine support for any point being made. You and HAL both made good points, but using words words like Commiefornia or language such as "blood sucking leech scumbags" doesn't lend any additional merit to the point itself. And unfair comments such as, "After all, the illegals need their California tax payer supplied social welfare and unemployment benefits." can lend the messenger to be dismissed out hand, which wouldn't be fair to HAL. I say HAL's statement is unfair because there are also legal citizens of CA that need those benefits too. But I agree with HAL that the Franchise Tax Board is far too aggressive in their collection of said monies and their tactics are wrong.
And as long as we're on the topic of taxes, welfare, and airline pilots...we should mention, purely out of fairness, the $50 billion the airline industry received from our proverbial "Rich Uncle". $25 billion was in loans and $25 billion was payroll support. Also, to be fair, 70% of that $50 billion won't have to be repaid (according to Bloomberg).
Now, my point is NOT that the airlines shouldn't have received any aid. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. The airline industry has had some very volatile times the last 20 years. I'm glad that pay roll support could be channeled to those companies to help good folks like you and HAL. As such, all of us might benefit in exercising a little tact and be more objective with our language. Especially if we happen to be living in a glass house.
And as long as we're on the topic of taxes, welfare, and airline pilots...we should mention, purely out of fairness, the $50 billion the airline industry received from our proverbial "Rich Uncle". $25 billion was in loans and $25 billion was payroll support. Also, to be fair, 70% of that $50 billion won't have to be repaid (according to Bloomberg).
Now, my point is NOT that the airlines shouldn't have received any aid. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. The airline industry has had some very volatile times the last 20 years. I'm glad that pay roll support could be channeled to those companies to help good folks like you and HAL. As such, all of us might benefit in exercising a little tact and be more objective with our language. Especially if we happen to be living in a glass house.